DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 5/12/2026.
Claims 2, 15, & 29 were cancelled. Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 14, 18, 20-21, 25-28, & 30-31 remain pending. Claims 32-33 were added. Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 14, 18, 20-21, 25-28, & 30-33 have been examined and are rejected.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2021/117300 filed 9/8/2021.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the communications above have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In the communications filed, applicant argues in substance that:
Argument (a) In Fu, when the first cell does not support the target slice, the first cell or the target frequency is directly skipped, or the reselection priority of the first cell or the frequency priority of the target frequency is directly lowered. Fu at ¶ [0168]. Fu therefore does not disclose performing a separate determination of whether to execute a reselection limitation, but instead directly applies the limitation.
In contrast, in the present application, the present application explicitly requires a determination step based on corresponding information (e.g., first indication information). Thus, even if the target cell does not support the currently required network slice, the terminal may still be allowed to reselect to that cell when certain conditions are met (for example, according to an indication of the first indication information). This technical effect cannot be achieved in the technical solution of Fu, because under the mechanism of Fu, a cell that does not support the slice is already marginalized or excluded at the priority ranking stage, and there is no possibility that it could still be reselected.
That is, Fu does not disclose, or even teach or suggest, determining whether to perform a reselection restriction based on corresponding information.
In response to Argument (a), examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a separate determination of whether to execute a reselection limitation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of limitation 1 of Claim 1 includes receiving target cell reselection parameters. The BRI of limitation 3 of Claim 1 includes determining whether to reselect a target cell based on the received parameters. Additionally, it is noted that limitation 2 of Claim 1 (determining network slice support) is not tied or connected to either of limitations 1 or 3.
For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments are considered not persuasive.
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.
(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, 5, 14, 18, 25-28, & 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fu et al. (US 2024/0073761 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Fu teaches:
A cell reselection method, executed by a terminal, comprising:
receiving first indication information from a network device, wherein the first indication information is configured to indicate whether to reselect a target cell and/or a cell with a same frequency as the target cell; (a network device indicates first slice information to a terminal device which may include slice-based frequency priority [Fu: 0227-29], and in response the UE determines frequency priorities and performs cell reselection based on the determined priorities [Fu: 0228; 0266; Fig. 4]);
determining that a target cell does not support one or more network slices of the terminal; (determine whether a candidate cell supports a target slice based on information indicated by the network device [Fu: 0164; 0168; 0174]);
and determining whether to execute a reselection limitation on the target cell and/or a cell with a same frequency as the target cell according to the first indication information; (a result of determining whether to reselect a certain candidate cell may change depending on whether the frequency priority determined based on the slice information or the first frequency priority is used [Fu: 0184; 0190; 0194-202], wherein in case the first cell does not support the target slice, the first cell may be skipped, or the target frequency may be skipped, or the reselection priority of reselection to the first cell may be lowered to a third priority, or the frequency priority of the target frequency may be lowered to a fourth priority [Fu: 0168; 0174]).
With regard to Claim 5, Fu teaches:
The cell reselection method according to claim 1, wherein the reselection limitation comprises: reducing a priority of a frequency point corresponding to the target cell; (in case the first cell does not support the target slice, the first cell may be skipped, or the target frequency may be skipped, or the reselection priority of reselection to the first cell may be lowered to a third priority, or the frequency priority of the target frequency may be lowered to a fourth priority [Fu: 0168; 0174]).
With regard to Claims 14, 18, 25-28, & 30, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 1 & 5 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 14, 18, 25-28, & 30 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 & 5.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-8, 10-11, 20-21, & 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 2024/0073761 A1) in view of Yang (US 2023/0224780 A1).
With regard to Claim 7, Fu teaches the cell reselection method according to claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the reselection limitation corresponds to a time parameter for executing the reselection limitation on the at least one of the target cell or the cell with the same frequency as the target cell.
In a similar field of endeavor involving network slice reselection, Yang discloses:
wherein the reselection limitation corresponds to a time parameter for executing the reselection limitation; (selection of the network slice is achieved by finding a matched available User Equipment Route Selection Policy (URSP) rule in a list of URSP rules [Yang: 0030], wherein when a URSP rule corresponding to the currently selected network slice is identified as “unavailable” within a preset period of time, and after the preset period of time ends, the identification of “unavailable” of the URSP rule is removed [Yang: 0041; 0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fu in view of Yang in order to utilize a time parameter as a reselection limitation in the system of Fu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Fu with Yang as doing so would allow slices that are marked as unavailable for selection to become available again after a period of time, thereby acknowledging that issues associated with unavailable cells is often temporary in nature and can possibly be resolved prior to expiration of a timer.
With regard to Claim 8, Fu teaches the cell reselection method according to claim 1, but does not teach:
determining that a reselection limitation lifting condition is satisfied; and determining whether to lift the reselection limitation executed on the at least one of the target cell or the cell with the same frequency as the target cell.
In a similar field of endeavor involving network slice reselection, Yang discloses:
determining that a reselection limitation lifting condition is satisfied; and determining whether to lift the reselection limitation executed on the at least one of the target cell or the cell with the same frequency as the target cell; (selection of the network slice is achieved by finding a matched available User Equipment Route Selection Policy (URSP) rule in a list of URSP rules [Yang: 0030], wherein when a URSP rule corresponding to the currently selected network slice is identified as “unavailable” within a preset period of time, and after the preset period of time ends, the identification of “unavailable” of the URSP rule is removed [Yang: 0041; 0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fu in view of Yang in order to determine a reselection limitation lifting condition is satisfied in the system of Fu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Fu with Yang as doing so would allow slices that are marked as unavailable for selection to become available again after a period of time, thereby acknowledging that issues associated with unavailable cells is often temporary in nature and can possibly be resolved prior to expiration of a timer.
With regard to Claim 10, Fu-Yang teaches:
The cell reselection method according to claim 8, wherein the reselection limitation lifting condition comprises:
the terminal receives a second indication information, wherein the second indication information indicates whether to lift the executed reselection limitation; (it is detected whether network congestion happens to the network slice corresponding to the URSP rule identified as “unavailable”, wherein if it is detected that no network congestion happens to the network slice corresponding to the URSP rule identified as “unavailable”, the identification of “unavailable” of the URSP rule is removed [Yang: 0044; 0096; Fig. 7]).
With regard to Claim 11, Fu-Yang teaches:
The cell reselection method according to claim 10, wherein, the second indication information determines that terminal slice information changes; (it is detected whether network congestion happens to the network slice corresponding to the URSP rule identified as “unavailable”, wherein if it is detected that no network congestion happens to the network slice corresponding to the URSP rule identified as “unavailable”, the identification of “unavailable” of the URSP rule is removed [Yang: 0044; 0096; Fig. 7]).
With regard to Claims 20-21 & 31-32, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 7-8 & 10-11 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 20-21 & 31-32 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 7-8 & 10-11.
Claims 12 & 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 2024/0073761 A1) in view of Yang (US 2023/0224780 A1) as applied to Claims 11 & 21 above, and further in view of Mildh et al. (US 2021/0282082 A1).
With regard to Claim 12, Fu-Yang teaches the cell reselection method according to claim 11, but does not teach:
wherein the terminal slice information comprises at least one of a list of network slices supported by the terminal; or priorities of the network slices supported by the terminal.
In a similar field of endeavor involving obtaining network slice availability that indicates which network slices are supported, Mildh discloses:
wherein the terminal slice information comprises at least one of a list of network slices supported by the terminal; or priorities of the network slices supported by the terminal; (signaling of slice support can be sent at initial connection setup between network nodes and also dynamically when the slice availability changes (e.g. event triggered) [Mildh: 0258]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fu-Yang in view of Mildh in order to receive terminal slice information comprising a list of network slices supported by the terminal in the system of Fu-Yang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Fu-Yang with Mildh as doing so would allow the terminal to receive updated slice support based on an event that results in slice availability changes.
With regard to Claim 33, it appears substantially similar to the limitations recited by claim 12 and consequently does not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claim. Accordingly, claim 33 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 12.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated any new grounds 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 extension fee 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shih et al. (US 2023/0030150 A1) which teaches a UE selects a first slice based on slice priority information; wherein the UE, in response to selecting the first slice, determines whether a cell on the at least one frequency indicated in the frequency priority information supports the first slice, the cell being detected by the UE according to a ranking criterion that is associated with signal strength measurement; wherein the UE reselects a second slice when the UE determines that the cell does not support the first slice [0380; Fig. 3].
Zhu et al. (US 2021/0037455 A1) which teaches the RAN may indicate to the core network that the availability status of the UE's interested slice has changed so that the core network may update the allowed NSSAI [0166].
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Rebecca Song can be reached on 571-270-3667. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights