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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 7, 8, and 17 are 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. Specifically, the claim limitations “R”, “Q”, “R1”, “Q1”, and “N”, which appear to be variables, are undefined rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 11-13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LIU (US 2024/0340963 A1, hereinafter “LIU”).
Regarding claim 1:
LIU discloses a random access resources isolation method for radio access network slicing (e.g., Fig. 1), comprising:
receiving, by a terminal device (e.g., [0032], a user equipment (UE)), random access configuration information sent by a network equipment (e.g., [0033], a base station), the random access configuration information comprising information indicating that the random access resources are used for at least one of: slice-based random access and common random access (e.g., Fig. 1, 101, [0033]-[0040], resource configuration information for common random access resource and specified random access resource corresponding to at least one network slice resource).
Regarding claim 2:
LIU further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, the method further comprises: determining, by the terminal device, random access resources to be used based on relevant parameters and the random access configuration information (e.g., Fig. 1, 102 and 103, [0041]-[0043], [0052]-[0060]); and initiating, by the terminal device, a random access request based on the random access resources to be used (e.g., Fig. 1, 104, [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 3:
LIU further discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein, the relevant parameters comprise: at least one of single network slice selection assistance information S-NSSAI, slice group and no slicing related configuration information (e.g., [0058]).
Regarding claims 11-13:
See rejection of similar features with respect to claims 1-3.
Regarding claim 23:
LIU discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (e.g., Fig. 7, 704), with computer programs stored thereon that, when executed by a processor (e.g., Fig. 7, 720), cause the processor to execute a random access resources isolation method, the method comprising: receiving, by a terminal device, random access configuration information sent by a network equipment, the random access configuration information comprising information indicating that the random access resources are used for at least one of slice-based random access and common random access. (See rejection of similar features with respect to claims 1-3.)
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU in view of CHENG et al. (US 2024/0015798 A1, hereinafter “CHENG”).
Regarding claim 4:
LIU does not disclose the slice group can be determined in one of the following ways: notifying, by the network equipment, the terminal device of the relationship between S-NSSAI and slice group through non-access stratum NAS signaling; using slice/service type SST as slice group; or using user access control UAC as slice group.
CHENG teaches the slice group can be determined in one of the following ways: notifying, by the network equipment, the terminal device of the relationship between S-NSSAI and slice group through non-access stratum NAS signaling; using slice/service type SST as slice group; or using user access control UAC as slice group (e.g., [0132]-[0133]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of LIU based on the teaching from CHENG to include the feature the slice group can be determined in one of the following ways: notifying, by the network equipment, the terminal device of the relationship between S-NSSAI and slice group through non-access stratum NAS signaling, using slice/service type SST as slice group, or using user access control UAC as slice group, in order to enhance random access for a specified group of network slices.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU in view of LEE et al. (US 2024/0172296 A1, hereinafter “LEE”).
Regarding claim 5:
LIU further discloses the random access configuration information comprises information indicating that the random access resources are used for at least one of the slice-based random access resources and the common random access resources, the slice-based random access resources and the common random access resources using shared random access occasions RO (e.g., [0035], common random access resource).
LIU is silent with regard to preambles of the slice-based random access resources and preambles of the common random access resources are various.
LEE teaches preambles of the slice-based random access resources and preambles of the common random access resources are various (e.g., [0205], [0224], [0238], random access preambles within common PRACH resource set, [0219], [0220], [0237], random access preamble within slice-specific PRACH resource set).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of LIU based on the teaching from LEE to include the feature preambles of the slice-based random access resources and preambles of the common random access resources are various, in order to optimize random access resources usage and reduce latency in random access.
Regarding claim 6:
LIU is silent with regard to the random access configuration information further comprises at least one of preambles associated with the slice-based random access resources and preambles associated with the common random access resources.
LEE teaches the random access configuration information further comprises at least one of preambles associated with the slice-based random access resources and preambles associated with the common random access resources (e.g., [0217]-[0219], [0220], [0224], [0237], [0238]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of LIU based on the teaching from LEE to include the feature the random access configuration information further comprises at least one of preambles associated with the slice-based random access resources and preambles associated with the common random access resources, in order to optimize random access resources usage and reduce latency in random access.
Regarding claim 15 and 16:
See rejection of similar features with respect to claims 5 and 6.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU in view of LEE, and further in view of LI et al. (US 2023/0199859 A1, hereinafter “LI”).
Regarding claim 7:
LIU is silent with regard to the common random access resources are corresponding to at least one of: R contention based preambles for a common 4-step random access and Q contention based preambles for a common 2-step random access; and the slice-based random access resources are corresponding to at least one of: R1 contention based 4-step random access preambles for network slice and Q1 contention based 2-step random access preambles for network slice.
LEE teaches the common random access resources are corresponding to at least one of: R contention based preambles for a common 4-step random access and Q contention based preambles for a common 2-step random access (e.g., [0202], [0203], [0205]-[0208], [0217], [0021]).
LI teaches the slice-based random access resources are corresponding to at least one of: R1 contention based 4-step random access preambles for network slice and Q1 contention based 2-step random access preambles for network slice (e.g., Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of LIU based on the teaching from LEE and LI to include the features the common random access resources are corresponding to at least one of: R contention based preambles for a common 4-step random access and Q contention based preambles for a common 2-step random access; and the slice-based random access resources are corresponding to at least one of: R1 contention based 4-step random access preambles for network slice and Q1 contention based 2-step random access preambles for network slice, in order to optimize random access resources usage and reduce latency in random access.
Regarding claim 17:
See rejection of similar features with respect to claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alvin ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6am-9am and 2pm-7pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/BO HUI A ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465