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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 recites the limitation " the second radio network entity " where it originally recited “ identifying at least one candidate radio network entity ”. It is unclear if the “candidate radio network entity” is the “second radio network entity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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)(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 , 7, 12-15, 18, and 26-28, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2018/0324645 A1) . Regarding claim s 1 and 14 , Park discloses: a user equipment ( fig. 4 element 406 ) , comprising: a transceiver ( fig. 4 element 407 ) ; and a processor ( fig.4 element 408 ) coupled to the transceiver ( fig.4 element 407 is coupled with 408 ) , wherein the processor is configured to: receive configuration information ( par.[0169] which recites, in part, “ The new RAN may provide a differentiated handling of traffic for different network slices that may be pre-configured, and may allow a single RAN node to support multiple slices. The new RAN may support selection of a RAN part for a given network slice, by one or more slice ID(s) or NSSAI(s) provided by a UE or a NGC (e.g. NG CP). The slice ID(s) or NSSAI(s) may identify one or more of pre-configured network slices in a PLMN. For initial attach, a UE may provide a slice ID and/or an NSSAI, and a RAN node (e.g. gNB ) may use the slice ID or the NSSAI for routing an initial NAS signaling to an NGC control plane function (e.g. NG CP). ” ) for communicating using a first network slice service and a second network slice service (par.[ 0169 ] describes different network slices, and support of multiple slices. Par.[0187] which recites, in part, “ UE associating with multiple network slices simultaneously may be supported. ”, par.[0190] ) ; communicate, via the transceiver, the first data for the network slice service via a first radio network entity ( par.[0190] describes a UE utilizing different slices for different services. Thus, the UE may, on a first network entity have a slice/service/PDU session established with the network ) ; establish, via the transceiver, access to a second radio network entity as a result of the first radio network entity being unavailable for the second network slice service (par.[0180] which recites, in part, “if a wireless device requires a certain network slice type, and if a serving cell or a serving base station does not support the certain network slice type and/or does not have enough resources for the certain network slice type, the serving base station may handover the wireless device to a neighboring cell supporting the certain network slice type .”) ; and communicate, via the transceiver, second data for the second network slice service via the second radio network entity (par.[0180] describes the handover of the UE when the one or more slices aren’t supported at the serving network entity. Par.[0182] which recites, in part, “a base station may transmit a handover request to a neighboring base station with an indication informing that the handover is initiated to support one or more services and/or one or more network slices to a wireless device.”) . Regarding claim s 2 , 15 , 18 , Park discloses: use a first protocol data unit (PDU) session for the first network service; and use a second PDU session from the second network service (par.[0190] which recites, in part, “connection of a UE to multiple network slices may be supported, as multiple PDU sessions per UE may be able to be established”) . Regarding claim 7, Park discloses: transmit, via the transceiver, a message requesting that the user equipment be handed- over to a radio network entity that supports the second network slice service (fig.15 and par.[0193] the UE sends a message requesting a network slice, or handover to a cell that supports the network slice, which is forwarded by the core network to the serving base station) . Regarding claim 12, Park discloses: wherein the first radio network entity being unavailable for the second network slice service comprises the first radio network entity not supporting the second network service (par.[0193] which recites, in part, “an indication indicating that the serving base station is required to handover the wireless device to another base station that supports the network slice and/or the service associated with the network slice”) . Regarding claim 13, Park discloses: wherein the first radio network entity being unavailable for the second network slice service comprises the first radio network entity not being configured for the second network slice service (par.[0193] if the base station doesn’t support the service, then the base station is configured for the service) . Regarding claims 17 and 28 , Park discloses: a network entity ( fig. 4 element 401 ) , comprising: a transceiver ( fig. 4 element 402 ) ; and a processor ( fig.4 element 403 ) coupled to the transceiver ( fig.4 element 402 is coupled with 403 ) , wherein the processor is configured to: communicate, via the transceiver, the first data for the network slice service via a first radio network entity ( par.[0190] describes a UE utilizing different slices for different services. Thus, the UE may, on a first network entity have a slice/service/PDU session established with the network ); receive a message that identifies a second network service, and further identifies at least one other radio network entity (par.[0180] which recites, in part, “if a wireless device requires a certain network slice type, and if a serving cell or a serving base station does not support the certain network slice type and/or does not have enough resources for the certain network slice type, the serving base station may handover the wireless device to a neighboring cell supporting the certain network slice type .” , par.[0192 – 0194] and fig.15 ) ; and communicate, second data for the second network slice service via the second radio network entity selected from the at least one other radio network entity (par.[0180] describes the handover of the UE when the one or more slices aren’t supported at the serving network entity. Par.[0182] which recites, in part, “a base station may transmit a handover request to a neighboring base station with an indication informing that the handover is initiated to support one or more services and/or one or more network slices to a wireless device.”) . Regarding claim 26, Park discloses: in conjunction with establishing access between the user equipment and the second radio network entity (fig.15 the handover from the first cell to the second cell) : establish access stratum (AS) context and resources in the second radio network entity (fig.15 implicit , the office takes official notice , when the UE connects to a second cell, the AS context is established, wherein the AS context comprises an RRC configuration, PHY configuration, MAC configuration, etc.. and is necessary to facilitate communications between the UE and access network, (i.e. access stratum) ; and maintain non-access stratum (NAS) context for the PDU session in the second radio network entity (additionally, the NAS context for the PDU session is implicit as the NAS context comprises the PDU session ID, mapping between core network elements such as the SMF/AMF etc.) . Regarding claim 27, Park discloses: release access stratum (AS) context and resources in the first radio network entity; and maintain non-access stratum (NAS) context for the PDU session in the second radio network entity (again, the office takes official notice when the UE is release form the first radio network entity there is no need to maintain AS context with the first network entity because the UE is no longer in communications with the first network entity. Additionally, the PDU NAS context with the second network entity would be sustained as the UE would have NAS context via the second network entity with the core network) . 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 nonobviousness . Claim (s) 3 , 16 , and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to the independent claims, in view of Qu et al. (US 2023/0040079 A1). Regarding claim s 3 , 16 , and 18 , the disclosure of Park teaches that the slices may utilize different PDU sessions, but may not disclose: use a first protocol data unit (PDU) session for the first network service and the second network service. In an analogous art, the disclosure of Qu teaches: use a first protocol data unit (PDU) session for the first network service and the second network service (par.[0178] which recites, in part, “PDU session 1 corresponds to the network slice 4, the network slice 2, and the network slice 3.”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Park for providing handover for a network slice service when the service slice isn’t supported by the serving base station, with the remapping as discussed in Qu. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow for the terminal to successfully initiate the network slice service and increase a probability of accessing and using the network. Claim (s) 3-4 , 8 -1 1 , 16 , 18-19 , 22 , and 25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to the independent claims, in view of Velev et al. (US 2024/0015612 A1). Regarding claim s 3 , 16 , and 18 , the disclosure of Park teaches that the slices may utilize different PDU sessions, but may not disclose: use a first protocol data unit (PDU) session for the first network service and the second network service. In an analogous art, the disclosure of Velev teaches: use a first protocol data unit (PDU) session for the first network service and the second network service (par.[0049] which recites, in part, “how traffic of existing PDU Session(s) can be mapped to alternative network slice(s). The source RAN node exchanges such information with the target RAN node (e.g., during handover preparation phase). Also, par.[0 110 ] which recites, in part, “ In addition to informing the UE 205, the T-RAN 225 may also inform the S-RAN 215 that the T-RAN 225 supports traffic and PDU Session remapping to alternative network slices . ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Park for handover, with the disclosure of Velev for remapping PDU sessions. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide for service continuity. Regarding claim 4 and 19 , Velev discloses: wherein the first PDU session is remapped from the first network slice service to the second network slice service in conjunction with the establishment of the access to the second radio network entity (par.[0110] In addition to informing the UE 205, the T-RAN 225 may also inform the S-RAN 215 that the T-RAN 225 supports traffic and PDU Session remapping to alternative network slices ). Regarding claim s 8 and 22 , Velev discloses: wherein user equipment context for the first network slice service is suspended in conjunction with the establishment of the access to the second radio network entity (par.[0078] describes suspension of a DRB corresponding to a particular network slice when performing handover. That is, a previously configured slice utilizing a DRB may be suspended or released when being handed over to another cell, which may use another slice) . Regarding claim s 9 and 25 , Velev discloses: a protocol data unit (PDU) session is associated with the first network slice service and the second network slice service ( par.[0049] which recites, in part, “how traffic of existing PDU Session(s) can be mapped to alternative network slice(s). The source RAN node exchanges such information with the target RAN node (e.g., during handover preparation phase). Also, par.[0 110 ] which recites, in part, “ In addition to informing the UE 205, the T-RAN 225 may also inform the S-RAN 215 that the T-RAN 225 supports traffic and PDU Session remapping to alternative network slices . ) ; a first access resource is allocated for the first network slice service; and a second access resource is allocated for the second network slice service (with regard to the access resource, the first network slice is utilized on a first cell utilizing first resources, and the second network slice is used after handover on a second set of resources) . Regarding claim 10, Park discloses: the first radio network entity comprises a first distributed unit; the second radio network entity comprises a second distributed unit; the first distributed unit is controlled by a first control unit; and the second distributed unit is controlled by the first control unit. (fig.13b depicts a distributed RAN, with a centralized deployment) . Regarding claim 11, Park discloses: wherein: the first radio network entity comprises a first cell; the second radio network entity comprises a second cell; the first cell is served by a first base station; and the second cell is served by a second base station (fig.13a depicts a plurality of base stations which are attached to a core network and command different cells) . Claim (s) 5 -6 , 20-21 , and 29-30, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to the independent claims, in view of Fu et al. (US 2023/ 0014464 A1). Regarding claim 5, Park discloses: transmit, via the transceiver, a first message identifying the second network slice service and identifying at least one candidate radio network entity (par.[0195] which recites, in part, “The first message may further comprise a wireless device identifier of the wireless device, one or more network slice identifiers, one or more packet flow identifiers (e.g. bearer identifiers) associated one or more of the network slice identifiers, one or more cell identifiers, and/or the like”) . Park does not disclose: receive, via the transceiver, a second message specifying that the second radio network entity has been selected for the second network slice service . In analogous art, the disclosure of Fu teaches: receive, via the transceiver, a second message specifying that the second radio network entity has been selected for the second network slice service (fig.3 element 1702) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Park with the disclosure of Fu. The motivations/suggestion would have been to move a UE to a cell that can support the network services needed by the UE. Regarding claim 6, Park discloses: transmit, via the transceiver, a first message identifying at least one candidate radio network entity that supports the second network slice service ( par.[0195] which recites, in part, “The first message may further comprise a wireless device identifier of the wireless device, one or more network slice identifiers, one or more packet flow identifiers (e.g. bearer identifiers) associated one or more of the network slice identifiers, one or more cell identifiers, and/or the like” ) . Park does not disclose: receive, via the transceiver, a second message specifying that the second radio network entity has been selected for the second network slice service . In analogous art, the disclosure of Fu teaches: receive, via the transceiver, a second message specifying that the second radio network entity has been selected for the second network slice service (fig.3 element 1702) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Park with the disclosure of Fu. The motivations/suggestion would have been to move a UE to a cell that can support the network services needed by the UE. Regarding claim s 20 and 29 , Park discloses: receive , via the transceiver, a first message identifying the second network slice service and identifying at least one candidate radio network entity (par.[0195] which recites, in part, “The first message may further comprise a wireless device identifier of the wireless device, one or more network slice identifiers, one or more packet flow identifiers (e.g. bearer identifiers) associated one or more of the network slice identifiers, one or more cell identifiers, and/or the like”) . Park does not disclose: transmit , via the transceiver, a second message specifying that the second radio network entity has been selected for the second network slice service . In analogous art, the disclosure of Fu teaches: transmit , via the transceiver, a second message specifying that the second radio network entity has been selected for the second network slice service (fig.3 element 1702) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Park with the disclosure of Fu. The motivations/suggestion would have been to move a UE to a cell that can support the network services needed by the UE. Regarding claim s 21 and 30 , Park discloses: transmit, via the transceiver, a first message identifying at least one candidate radio network entity that supports the second network slice service ( par.[0195] which recites, in part, “The first message may further comprise a wireless device identifier of the wireless device, one or more network slice identifiers, one or more packet flow identifiers (e.g. bearer identifiers) associated one or more of the network slice identifiers, one or more cell identifiers, and/or the like” ) . Park does not disclose: transmitting , via the transceiver, a second message specifying that the second radio network entity has been selected for the second network slice service . In analogous art, the disclosure of Fu teaches: transmitting , via the transceiver, a second message specifying that the second radio network entity has been selected for the second network slice service (fig.3 element 1702) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Park with the disclosure of Fu. The motivations/suggestion would have been to move a UE to a cell that can support the network services needed by the UE. Claim (s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to the independent claims, in view of Murray et al. (US 2023/0156583 A1). Regarding claim 23, the disclosure of Park teaches performing handover in order to utilize a different network slice which isn’t supported by the serving cell, that is, the first and second network slice services, but may not disclose: terminate the network slice service; suspend user equipment context for the network slice service on the second radio network entity; and resume user equipment context for the network slice service on the first radio network entity. In an analogous art, the disclosure of Murray teaches: terminate the network slice service (par.[0209] which recites, in part, “cause the UE 201 to select a different cell, handover to a different cell, to terminate any PDU Sessions that are associated with the slice and to de-register from the slice.”) ; suspend user equipment context for the second network slice service on the second radio network entity (par.[0217] which recites, in part, “For example, if a UE 201 is registered to an S-NSSAI supporting a specific PDU session or sessions, but the UE 201 is not located in a Slice Registration Area that supports that S-NSSAI, the network may “suspend” the PDU sessions(s) associated with that S-NSSAI.”) ; and resume user equipment context for the first network slice service on the first radio network entity (par.[0223 – 0224] describes resumption of a network service on a cell that supports the network service) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Park for performing handover, with slice resumption methods as discussed in Murray. The motivation/suggestion would have been to resume a previously utilized network service on a cell that supports the network service. Claim (s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to the independent claims, in view of Natarajan et al. (US 2023/0319906 A1). Regarding claim 24, the disclosure of Park teaches the independent claims, but does not disclose:. terminate the second network slice service; suspend user equipment context for the second network slice service on the second radio network entity; and switch user equipment context for the first network slice service to the second radio network entity. In an analogous art, the disclosure of Natarajan teaches: terminate the second network slice service (fig.8 element 804 the network slice which is being used is terminated/release. This is interpreted as the second network slice service) ; suspend user equipment context for the second network slice service on the second radio network entity (fig.8 the slice is suspended in conjunction with the release) ; and switch user equipment context for the first network slice service to the second radio network entity (fig.8 element 814 the other network slice context is instantiated with second AMF but the same base station) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Park, with the disclosure of Natarajan. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide a mechanism for utilizing mutually exclusive network slices at a same base station. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Shih et al. (US 2018/0352491 A1) “Methods, Devices, and Systems for Service-Driven Mobility Management” Hong et al. (US 2023/0247716 A1) “Method for Processing Data on Basis of Network Slice, and Apparatus Therefor” Jin et al. (US 2020/0145878 A1) “Communication Method and Communications Device” Seibre et al. (US 2023/0276324 A1) “Cell Reselection-Related Information Associated with Network Slice or Closed Access Group for Wireless Networks” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5339 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Derrick Ferris can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3123 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMAAL HENSON Primary Examiner Art Unit 2411 /JAMAAL HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411