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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed after the mailing date. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (EP 3544335 A1, as cited in Applicant’s IDS received 8/21/2025).
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].
Regarding claim 2, Liu 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 [¶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 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].
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 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) 3, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (EP 3544335 A1, as cited in Applicant’s IDS received 8/21/2025) in view of Liu et al. (WO 2018171424 A1, hereinafter ‘424).
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches:
The method of claim 1.
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.
Regarding claim 9, Liu-‘424 teaches:
The method of claim 3, 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 3].
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches:
The method of claim 10.
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.
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 Babaei et al. (“Babaei”) (US 20190074935 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Liu-’424 teaches:
The method of claim 3.
Liu’424 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 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 12, Liu-’424 teaches:
The method of claim 11.
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), Babaei et al. (“Babaei”) (US 20190074935 A1), and Babaei et al. (WO 2018231425 A1, hereinafter ‘425).
Regarding claim 14, Liu-‘424-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.
Claim(s) 4-7, 15-19 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 4, Liu-‘424 teaches:
The method of claim 3, 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 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 5-7, Examiner notes these claims do not have patentable weight. Claim 4 depends on claim 3 which 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 15, Liu-‘424 teaches:
The method of claim 11, 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 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 15 depends on claim 11 which 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 11].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US 20240244475 A1 ¶0172
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. 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