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 Arguments
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues Liu-335 relates to a solution of sending shortened slice index information, but fails to disclose carrying network slice index set, an ordering of indexes in the network slice index set, and an index of a target available network slice.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Liu-335 teaches each element of the claim as cited. Liu-335 teaches “network slice index set” as in ¶0034, SSI (index set as these are slice indices). The “ordering of indexes” is taught in ¶0054 wherein SSIs are sent in groups according to an order and thus the information carries an ordering, Examiner noting that the claim does not further specify “ordering” in the claim thus any indication of multiple SSIs as in Liu-335 can be considered an ordering. Finally, Liu-335 teaches “index of a target available network slice” as this may be ¶0035 includes slice indexes configured for the UE thus at least a target available slice.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues Liu-335 does not indicate sending the information in RRC, DCI, or MAC.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Secondary reference Liu-424 teaches page 2-3, sending this kind of information via DCI, where each DCI includes a network slice indication SIF field, configured to indicate a network slice corresponding to the DCI, page 9 shows SIF and NIF fields in DCI. Thus it would have been obvious to specify the slice information in DCI as in Liu-424 who shows that slice-related information like that transmitted in Liu-335 may be transmitted via DCI according to techniques known at the time to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues Chun merely discloses whether multiplexing is allowed or not but does not indicate a slice for channel multiplexing. Chun only teaches permission rather than an index of a specific network slice.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As cited, Chun teaches ¶0579 “information on which pdu session/network slice/logical channel data is multiplexing with which pdu session/network slice/logical channel data is allowed or not allowed is transmitted to the terminal” thus the UE is informed on a specific slice for multiplexing which supports the claimed limitation, “network slice for logical channel multiplexing” as the specific slice which is multiplexing is included in information.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 16-18, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (EP 3544335 A1) in view of Liu et al. (WO 2018171424 A1, hereinafter ‘424) and Chun (US 20210352575 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches:
A network slice control information sending method, comprising: generating, by a first communication node, downlink control information for indicating network slice information [¶0033, slice SSIs for NSSAI configured, ¶0034, sent in downlink message with NSSAI and SSIs to UE (corresponding to downlink control information with network slice information)];
And sending, by the first communication node, the downlink control information to a second communication node [¶0034, sent],
wherein the downlink control information carries a network slice index set, an ordering of indexes in the network slice index set, and an index of a target available network slice [Liu ¶0034, send SSIs of slices, being shortened slice indexes, ¶0054 configured as in Table 1 when sending to UE, including numbering / ordering, and ¶0035 SSI include slices configured for the UE, corresponding to index of target slice available i.e. configured].
Liu teaches downlink control information specifying slice information but not DCI.
‘424 teaches wherein the downlink control information comprises at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) signaling, a medium access control control element (MAC CE) signaling, or physical downlink control channel downlink control information (PDCCH DCI) [page 2-3, configured to generate one or more downlink control information DCI according to the scheduling information of the UE, where each DCI includes a network slice indication SIF field, configured to indicate a network slice corresponding to the DCI, page 9 shows SIF and NIF fields in DCI].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify sending the slice information via DCI. Liu teaches control signaling and it would have been obvious to specify DCI as in ‘424 who teaches this addresses the problem of complicated slice signaling as in the Background.
Liu teaches sending index information but not logical channel multiplexing.
Chun teaches wherein the index of the target available network slice indicates a network slice for logical channel multiplexing by the second communication node [¶0579, information sent to terminal on slice logical channel multiplexed with another logical channel being allowed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify logical multiplexing as in Chun. Liu teaches sending the indexing information and it would have been obvious to specify the logical multiplexing for the slice as in Chun for determining which slice and logical channel are allowed for multiplexing ¶0579.
Regarding claim 2, Liu-‘424-Chun teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the downlink control information is determined based on a network slice capability reported by the second communication node and a network slice capability of the first communication node [Liu ¶0056-57, UE reports NSSAI and SSI in request (capability reported by the second communication node), and “if the Requested NSSAI is based on the Allowed NSSAI, and no SSI is provided for the NSSAI in the Allowed NSSAI, the terminal conduct SSI numbering for the Requested NSSAI based on the Allowed NSSAI and reports the numbers to the network side” corresponding to capability of first communication node, ¶0069, send NSSAI to UE based on capability information exchanged, thus considered capability of slices between first and second nodes].
Regarding claim 5-7, Examiner notes these claims do not have patentable weight. Claim 1 recites three exclusive options, RRC, MAC CE, DCI. The claim was rejected with art that support the slice information sent via DCI, thus any limitations pertaining to RRC and MAC CE options as in claim 5, 6, and 7 do not have patentable weight and do not require support.
Regarding claim 9, Liu-‘424-Chun teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the PDCCH DCI comprises two different fields, or the PDCCH DCI comprises one field [‘424, page 9, DCI includes two different fields, SIF and NIF, see rationale for combination as in claim 1].
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches:
A network slice control information receiving and processing method, comprising: receiving, by a second communication node, downlink control information for indicating network slice information to the second communication node [¶0033, SSIs for NSSAI configured, ¶0034, sent in downlink message with NSSAI and SSIs to UE (corresponding to downlink control information)];
and performing, by the second communication node, an operation about a network slice according to the downlink control information [¶0034, sent, ¶0069 UE performs access control processing subsequent to receiving information];
wherein the downlink control information carries a network slice index set, an ordering of indexes in the network slice index set, and an index of a target available network slice [Liu ¶0034, send SSIs of slices, being shortened slice indexes, ¶0054 configured as in Table 1 when sending to UE, including numbering / ordering, and ¶0035 SSI include slices configured for the UE, corresponding to index of target slice available i.e. configured].
Liu teaches downlink control information specifying slice information but not DCI.
‘424 teaches wherein the downlink control information comprises at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) signaling, a medium access control control element (MAC CE) signaling, or physical downlink control channel downlink control information (PDCCH DCI) [page 2-3, configured to generate one or more downlink control information DCI according to the scheduling information of the UE, where each DCI includes a network slice indication SIF field, configured to indicate a network slice corresponding to the DCI, page 9 shows SIF and NIF fields in DCI].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify sending the slice information via DCI. Liu teaches control signaling and it would have been obvious to specify DCI as in ‘424 who teaches this addresses the problem of complicated slice signaling as in the Background.
Liu teaches sending index information but not logical channel multiplexing.
Chun teaches wherein the index of the target available network slice indicates a network slice for logical channel multiplexing by the second communication node [¶0579, information sent to terminal on slice logical channel multiplexed with another logical channel being allowed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify logical multiplexing as in Chun. Liu teaches sending the indexing information and it would have been obvious to specify the logical multiplexing for the slice as in Chun for determining which slice and logical channel are allowed for multiplexing ¶0579.
Regarding claim 16, 17, 18, Examiner notes these claims do not have patentable weight. Claim 10 recites three exclusive options, RRC, MAC CE, DCI. The claim was rejected with art that support the slice information sent via DCI, thus any limitations pertaining to RRC and MAC CE options do not have patentable weight and do not require support.
Regarding claim 19, Liu-‘424-Chun teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the PDCCH DCI comprises two different fields, or the PDCCH DCI comprises one field [‘424, page 9, DCI includes two different fields, SIF and NIF, see rationale for combination as in claim 10].
Regarding claim 23, Liu teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the network slice control information sending method of claim 1 [¶0111].
Claim(s) 8, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (EP 3544335 A1) in view of Liu et al. (WO 2018171424 A1, hereinafter ‘424) and Chun (US 20210352575 A1) and Babaei et al. (“Babaei”) (US 20190074935 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Liu-’424-Chun teaches:
The method of claim 1.
Liu’424-Chun teaches DCI but not an identifier related to logical channel multiplexing.
Babaei teaches wherein the RRC signaling comprises an identifier for indicating whether to perform logical channel multiplexing based on the network slice; or the MAC CE signaling comprises an identifier for indicating whether to perform logical channel multiplexing based on a network slice; or the PDCCH DCI comprises an identifier for indicating whether to perform logical channel multiplexing based on a network slice [¶0175 teaches logical channels, ¶0163-164 teaches slices, ¶0210 teaches DCI, ¶0216 “one or more parameters of the downlink control information may indicate one or more logical channel, wherein the one or more logical channel are multiplexed in the transport block”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify indicating logical channel multiplexing in the DCI for logical multiplexing of resources from a grant to one or more channels ¶0181 of Babaei.
Regarding claim 12, Liu-’424-Chun teaches:
The method of claim 10.
Liu-’424 teaches DCI but not DCI with identifier related to logical channel multiplexing.
Babaei teaches wherein the RRC signaling comprises an identifier for indicating whether to perform logical channel multiplexing based on a network slice; or the MAC CE signaling comprises an identifier for indicating whether to perform logical channel multiplexing based on a network slice; or the PDCCH DCI comprises an identifier for indicating whether to perform logical channel multiplexing based on a network slice [¶0175 teaches logical channels, ¶0163-164 teaches slices, ¶0210 teaches DCI, ¶0216 “one or more parameters of the downlink control information may indicate one or more logical channel, wherein the one or more logical channel are multiplexed in the transport block”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify indicating logical channel multiplexing in the DCI for logical multiplexing of resources from a grant to one or more channels ¶0181 of Babaei.
Regarding claim 13, Liu-’424-Babaei teaches:
The method of claim 12.
Liu-’424 teaches DCI but not an identifier related to logical channel multiplexing.
Babaei teaches wherein performing, by the second communication node, the operation about the network slice according to the downlink control information comprises: in a case where the downlink control information indicates that the logical channel multiplexing is performed based on the network slice [Babaei ¶0210 teaches DCI, ¶0216 “one or more parameters of the downlink control information may indicate one or more logical channel, wherein the one or more logical channel are multiplexed in the transport block”], performing, by the second communication node, logical channel multiplexing of the network slice according to the downlink control information [¶0181, multiplex logical channels processed to receive joint PDUs at wireless device].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify indicating logical channel multiplexing in the DCI for logical multiplexing of resources from a grant to one or more channels ¶0181 of Babaei.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (EP 3544335 A1) in view of Liu et al. (WO 2018171424 A1, hereinafter ‘424) and Chun (US 20210352575 A1), Babaei et al. (“Babaei”) (US 20190074935 A1), and Babaei et al. (WO 2018231425 A1, hereinafter ‘425).
Regarding claim 14, Liu-‘424-Chun-Babaei teaches:
The method of claim 13.
Liu and Babaei teach multiplexing but does not teach the highest priority however ‘425 teaches wherein performing, by the second communication node, the logical channel multiplexing of the network slice according to the downlink control information comprises: performing, by the second communication node, the logical channel multiplexing based on a network slice corresponding to a highest-priority logical channel [¶0114, slice being URLLC logical channels have highest priority when being multiplexed as in ¶0127]; or performing, by the second communication node, the logical channel multiplexing based on a network slice indicated by the downlink control information and a priority level of a logical channel of the network slice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify indicating logical channel multiplexing based on logical channels with highest priority as in ‘425 ¶0094 wherein URLLC must satisfy user-plane latency requirements.
Conclusion
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 JAY VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at 571-272-3905. 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.
/JAY L VOGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights