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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 06/12/2026 for response of the office action mailed on 03/19/2026. Independent Claims 1, 3-6 and dependent Claim 2 are amended. Claims 1-6 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the office action mailed 03/19/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 as amended, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Main Argument: Applicant argues (page 8) Basu Mallick fails to disclose any technical concept of assuming a specific conflict condition (trigger) "when a plurality of network slice groups has the highest slice priority provided by the NAS layer" and determining the priority orders of the frequencies using the maximum value of the frequency priorities of the plurality of network slice groups as a solution to this condition. . . . [and] (page 9) There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the cited references to define this specific conflict condition or to apply the maximum value calculation specifically as a resolution to this NAS-provided priority tie. [emphasis added by Applicant]
Response to Main Argument: Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Here, as cited in the office action herein, the combination/modification of the teachings of the cited references (Basu Mallick and SHIH) perform the method as claimed and disclose the apparatus as claimed in amended Claims 1-6. Basu Mallick is relied upon to teach the UE starting with a highest priority slice in a slice list indicated by UE-NAS “selecting, a network slice group having the highest slice priority provided by a non-access stratum (NAS) layer” (as cited herein). For further illustration, at ¶0081 determining the reselection priorities of the plurality of frequencies comprises determining a highest priority NAS provided slice group in a slice group list indicated by the slice group information (see also ¶0101). Basu Mallick’s disclosure in combination with SHIH’s disclosure of a maximum value of the frequency priority for each of the plurality of network slice groups for each of the frequencies (SHIH, Abstract; ¶0103, ¶0114 ¶0143, ¶0160) teaches the max operation to a per-frequency value which arguably corresponds to “breaking or resolving the tie” per applicant’s argument.
Therefore, examiner maintains the rejection of Claims 1-6, as amended in view of the cited references herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu Mallick et al. (US 20240430768 A1), hereinafter Basu Mallick, in view of SHIH et al. (US 20230030150 A1), hereinafter SHIH.
Regarding Claim 1,
Basu Mallick teaches a cell reselection method performed by a user equipment (FIG. 1, disclosed throughout remote unit/UE 102) in a mobile communication system (Basu Mallick, Abstract, FIG. 1, FIG. 5, disclosed throughout method for determining frequency prioritization for performing slice group-based cell reselection), the cell reselection method comprising:
receiving, from a network, slice frequency information indicating a correspondence relationship between network slice groups, frequencies, and frequency priorities (Basu Mallick, FIG. 5, Abstract, ¶0004; ¶0036; receiving slice group information from a network device; [indicating] ¶0062, the slice info includes three elements (e.g., slice, frequency, and an absolute frequency priority)-the slice info (for a slice or slice group) may be provided to the UE using both broadcast and dedicated signaling-slice info is provided for the serving as well as neighboring frequencies / “correspondence relationship”; see also FIG. 5, at 502);
selecting, a network slice group having the highest slice priority provided by a non-access statum (NAS) layer (Basu Mallick, ¶0081 determining the reselection priorities of the plurality of frequencies comprises determining a highest priority NAS provided slice group in a slice group list indicated by the slice group information; see also ¶0092);
determining, for the selected network slice group, priority orders of corresponding frequencies, based on the frequency priorities indicated by the slice frequency information (Basu Mallick, ¶0054, the UE selects a slice group with a highest priority slice; ¶0064, UE determines a cell reselection priority of a frequency (e.g., a current NR or neighbor frequency) as a highest frequency priority; see also ¶0070 a UE starts by taking a highest priority slice in a slice list indicated by a UE-NAS to an AS (e.g., the highest priority slice listed in the allowed slice list)); and
reselecting a candidate cell satisfying a predetermined quality standard within a selected frequency selected by the user equipment in accordance with the determined priority orders (Basu Mallick, ¶0054, the UE performs measurements and selects the highest ranked and suitable cell as candidate for camping using the slice group specific NR frequency priorities; see also ¶0070 a cell reselection priority of a frequency is determined as a frequency priority (e.g., cell reselection priority) of a frequency supporting this highest priority slice),
wherein when a plurality of network slice groups has the highest slice priority, the selecting of the network slice group comprises, selecting, the plurality of network slice groups having the highest slice priority (Basu Mallick ¶0085, in certain embodiments, the method 600 further comprises determining a shortlisted list of frequencies comprising any signaled frequency as having a higher priority in response to the signaled frequency supporting at least one selected slice group included in a slice list group indicated by the slice group information compared to a frequency not having any slice included in the slice list group), and
Basu Mallick further teaches a plurality of network slice groups (Basu Mallick, ¶0062-0063; ¶0081-0082; ; ¶0085-0086; ¶0092-0095 slice groups and slice group identifier) and determining, the priority orders of the corresponding frequencies, based on a maximum value of the frequency priority for [a slice] (Basu Mallick, ¶0066; TABLE 3, determining priority of a frequency as a maximum among priorities assigned to that frequency corresponding to any of the slices that are indicated as supported by the particular frequency see also ¶0072, instead of a UE's highest priority slice, a slice that is supported on maximum (e.g., current and neighbor) frequencies is taken into account).
Basu Mallick does not explicitly teach the determining of the priority orders comprises when a plurality of network slice groups has a same slice group priority, determining, the priority orders of the corresponding frequencies, based on [a maximum] value of the frequency priority for each of a plurality of network slice groups for each of the frequencies.
However, in the analogous art, SHIH explicitly discloses the determining of the priority orders comprises determining, the priority orders of the corresponding frequencies, based on a maximum value of the frequency priority for each of the plurality of network slice groups for each of the frequencies (SHIH, Abstract; ¶0103, a frequency f1, two slices S1 and S2 are supported by the frequency f1 . .slice group [and ] ¶0114 The priority value for the combination (S1, f1) may be 2, the priority value for the combination (S2, f1, f2) may be 3, and the priority value for the combination (S1, S3, f3) may be 2.5 / slice groups; ¶0143, [t]he slice groups may be indicated by S-NSSAI(s), Slice Service Type(s) (SST(s)), or Slice Differentiator(s) (SD(s)) . . . [f]or example, slice(s) in the same slice group may be associated with the same slice information, the same priority information, and/or the same frequency information; see also ¶0160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Basu Mallick’s apparatus and method of determining frequency prioritization in wireless communication system with SHIH’s device and method of slice-based cell reselection. The motivation would be to support cell reselection (e.g., slice-based cell reselection) in an energy-efficient and time-efficient manner. [SHIH, ¶0005].
Regarding Claim 2, Basu Mallick and SHIH teach Claim 1.
Basu Mallick further teaches performing, when the frequency exists that is not assigned with the frequency priority for any of the plurality of network slice groups, control in which the frequency is not likely to be selected as the selected frequency (Basu Mallick, ¶0056, if the highest ranked and suitable cell supports the selected slice, then the UE camps on the cell—if the highest ranked suitable cell does not support the selected slice, then the UE excludes the frequency of that cell from cell reselection with frequency priorities of the selected slice group, examiner interprets the exclusion as “not likely to be selected”).
Regarding Claim 3, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 1 and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 1, in apparatus form (Basu Mallick, user equipment comprising: a circuitry, Basu Mallick FIG. 2, ¶0016, a hardware circuit comprising custom very-large-scale integration (“VLSI”) circuits or gate arrays).
Regarding Claim 4, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 1 and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 1 (Basu Mallick, a chipset (¶0016, logic chips) for controlling a user equipment, the chipset configured to execute processing of [the method steps of Claim 1]).
Regarding Claim 5, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 1 and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 1 (Basu Mallick, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising, stored thereupon, computer program instructions for execution by a user equipment, ¶0015, embodiments may take the form of a program product embodied in one or more computer readable storage devices storing machine readable code, ¶0019; ¶0021, computer readable code, and/or program code, referred hereafter as code, interpreted to correspond to the program instructions being configured to cause the user equipment to execute the method steps of Claim 1]).
Regarding Claim 6, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 1 and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 1 (Basu Mallick, a mobile communication system (FIG. 1, ¶0031, ¶0034, wireless communication system 100) comprising: a user equipment (remote unit / UE 102) [configured to perform method steps disclosed in Claim 1]).
Conclusion
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 TRACY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-7694. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at 571-270-0422. 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.
/TRACY L WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights