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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 4/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are amended.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 4/9/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 12,041,530 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 4/9/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 14 (pages 7-10) in a reply filed 4/9/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 14:
In the remarks, Applicant contends, in pages 7-9, that “A. Mildh Does Not Teach UE-Driven Access Node Initial Selection Based on Broadcast Neighbor Access Node Slice Support … Mildh discloses a reactive failure-recovery mechanism and does not address the problem of avoiding initial attachment to a cell that fails to support a required network slice, as addressed by Applicant’s Specification.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument improperly imports limitations from the specification, which describes preferred embodiments but does not limit the claim scope. During examination, claims are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation consistent with the specification. Claim 1 recites “wirelessly receiving slice information that was broadcast from a source wireless access node and that indicates wireless network slices that are served by other wireless network nodes; executing a user application that uses one of the wireless network slices, and in response, selecting one of the other wireless access nodes that serves the one of the wireless network slices based on … the slice information; …” without specifying a feature of avoiding initial attachment to a cell that fails to support a required network slice. Further, para. [0022-0024] of the Specification discloses re-selection of wireless access node (i.e., wireless access node 113) based on the broadcast information from the source wireless access node (i.e., wireless access node 112), while the UE is in idle mode and exchanges idle mode signaling with the wireless access node 112. Mildh explicitly teaches wherein “wireless device 210 initiates the setup of a network slice connection based on the information associated with network slice availability.” (see, Mildh: para. [0315]) and “Wireless device 210 may then select a new cell, frequency, or RAT that supports the first network slice. Once selected, wireless device 210 may then access the first network slice through the new cell, frequency, or RAT. In this manner, wireless device 210 may connect to the desired network slice, even if it is not available on the current cell, frequency, or radio access technology.” (see, Mildh: para. [0316]) based on the information associated with network slice availability in a network and received in a broadcast from a source network node (see, Mildh: para. [0313-0314]).
In the remarks, Applicant also contends, in page 9, that “B. Chen Relates to Application-Trigger Slice Discovery But Not Access Node Selection … Chen does not teach selecting which wireless access node the UE should attach to based on broadcast neighbor slice support.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to establish prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, Chen is only applied to cure deficiencies of Mildh for “executing a user application that uses one of the wireless network slices”, not for “selecting which wireless access node the UE should attach to based on broadcast neighbor slice support” since Mildh already clearly teaches, “selecting which wireless access node the UE should attach to based on broadcast neighbor slice support”, as set forth above. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the remarks, Applicant also contends, in page 9, that “C. Seidel Discusses Connected-Mode Handover But Not Pre-Attachment Access Node Selection … The UE is already RRC-connected to a serving cell and slice compatibility of the target cell is presumed and managed at the access node via neighbor cell tables (Id, pg. 50, lines 27-29). As such, Seidel operates in a connected-mode mobility context, not in an idle-mode or pre-attachment node-selection context.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to establish prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, Seidel is only applied to cure deficiencies of Mildh for “selecting one of the other wireless access nodes that serves the one of the wireless network slices based on wireless signal strength”, not for “selecting one of the other wireless access nodes that serves the one of the wireless network slices in an idle-mode or pre-attachment node-selection context” since the claim language does not recite such feature.
In the remarks, Applicant further contends, in pages 9-10, that “D. There Is Not a Teaching or Motivation to Alter the Proposed Combination … In particular, the post-connection slice management discussed by Mildh is altered into pre-connection access-node selection, the application slice identity selection discussed by Chen is altered into access-node selection logic, and the signal strength-based handover trigger discussed by Seidel is altered into an access node selection criterion used before attachment. There is no explicit motivation in the cited references to modify the references in these ways.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., pre-connection access-node selection) 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). In addition, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, the disclosure of Mildh in view of Chen and Seidel reads on the limitations as claimed.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, it is suggested to amend the claim to read either:
“A User Equipment (UE) comprising:
a radio; and circuitry[[;]], wherein:
the radio is configured to …;
the circuitry is configured to …; and
the radio is further configured to …”, or
“A User Equipment (UE) comprising:
[[the]] a radio configured to …;
[[the]] circuitry configured to …; and
the radio further configured to …” for clarity of limitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 14:
Claims 1, 8, and 14 each recite a limitation “one of the other wireless access nodes” (in line 5 of claim 1, in line 7 of claim 8, and in line 7 of claim 14). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 11, 12, and 14:
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, and 14 are also rejected because they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim, as set forth above.
It is suggested to replace the term “other wireless network nodes” with “other wireless access nodes” for clarity of the limitations and for consistency of the terms used throughout all claims (in claim 1, 5-7, 8, 12-14, and 18-20).
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mildh et al. (US 2021/0282082 A1, hereinafter Mildh) in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0367036, hereinafter Chen) further in view of Seidel et al. (WO 2021/239899 A1, hereinafter Seidel).
Regarding claim 1:
Mildth teaches a method (see, Mildth: Fig. 14) comprising:
wirelessly receiving slice information that was broadcast from a source wireless access node (see, Mildh: Fig. 2, network node 200) and that indicates wireless network slices that are served by other wireless network nodes (see, Mildh: para. [0311], “network node 200 may broadcast a parameter associated with its network slice availability and/or the network slice availability of one or more of the neighboring network nodes.”.
Mildh does not explicitly teach wherein executing a user application that uses the wireless network slice.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches wherein executing a user application that uses the wireless network slice (see, Chen: para. [0037], “a video streaming player (APP 1) is launched in the UE 302 and initiates an initial service request. If the selected default slice in idle mode does not meet the requirements of the request, the UE 302 may enter the connected mode and starts a connected mode network slice discovery and selection for initial network slice request, as described further herein.”.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Mildh in combination of the teachings of Chen in order for the UE (i.e., wireless device) to select the network slice that meets the requirement of the user application such as a video streaming player (see, Chen: para. [0037]).
Mildth further teaches wherein in response, selecting one of the other wireless access nodes that serves the one of the wireless network slices based on the slice information (see, Mildh: para. [0315], “wireless device 210 initiates the setup of a network slice connection based on the information associated with network slice availability. In certain embodiments, wireless device 210 initiates a removal of a network slice connection based on the information associated with network slice availability. In this manner, wireless device 210 may adjust the network slice connections based on the information associated with network slice availability.”; para. [0316], “wireless device 210 performs reselection of one or more of a cell, a frequency, or a radio access technology based on the information associated with network slice availability. For example, a particular network slice may not be available on the current cell, frequency, and/or radio access technology. Wireless device 210 may then perform reselection to select a cell, frequency, and/or radio access technology that supports the network slice.” Accordingly, wireless device 210 initiates the setup of a network slice connection base on the information associated with network slice availability and selects a cell (i.e., one of the neighboring network nodes, not the current source network node) that supports the network slice that the wireless device wants to connect.).
Mildth in view of Chen does not explicitly teach wherein selecting one of the other wireless access nodes that serves the one of the wireless network slices based on wireless signal strength.
In the same field of endeavor, Seidel teaches wherein selecting one of the other wireless access nodes that serves the one of the wireless network slices based on wireless signal strength (see, Seidel: Page 50, lines 10-17, “each base station may maintain the slice-specific RACH resource configuration of each neighbor cell in a neighbor cell list table. In case of a handover or in case of a conditional handover, the source gNB already knows which of the slice-specific RACH resource configurations is to be selected from the configured slice-specific RACH resource configuration of the target gNB for performing the RACH process for the handover completion. This may be based on information contained in the handover request or in the handover response message, for example a requested explicit or implicit slice identity.”; Page 50, lines 27-29, “in case one or more predefined CHO criteria are met, for example, a certain signal strength threshold, the CHO is triggered, and the UE performs the RACH in the target cell.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Mildh in view of Chen in combination of the teachings of Seidel in order for the UE (i.e., wireless device) to perform slice-specific RACH process for handover to a target cell based on a certain signal strength threshold (see, Seidel: Page 50).
Mildth further teaches wherein wirelessly exchanging slice data for the user application with the selected one of the other wireless access nodes, wherein the selected one of the other wireless access nodes exchanges the slice data with the one of the wireless network slices (see, Mildh: para. [0316], “Once selected, wireless device 210 may then access the first network slice through the new cell, frequency, or RAT. In this manner, wireless device 210 may connect to the desired network slice, even if it is not available on the current cell, frequency, or radio access technology.”).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Mildth in view of Chen and Seidel teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Seidel further teaches wherein wirelessly exchanging the slice data for the user application with the selected one of the other wireless access nodes comprises performing random access over a Random Access Channel (RACH) to the selected one of the other wireless access nodes (see, Seidel: Page 50, lines 10-17, “each base station may maintain the slice-specific RACH resource configuration of each neighbor cell in a neighbor cell list table. In case of a handover or in case of a conditional handover, the source gNB already knows which of the slice-specific RACH resource configurations is to be selected from the configured slice-specific RACH resource configuration of the target gNB for performing the RACH process for the handover completion. This may be based on information contained in the handover request or in the handover response message, for example a requested explicit or implicit slice identity.”; Page 50, lines 27-29, “in case one or more predefined CHO criteria are met, for example, a certain signal strength threshold, the CHO is triggered, and the UE performs the RACH in the target cell.”).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Mildth in view of Chen and Seidel teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Chen further teaches wherein executing the user application that uses the one of the wireless network slices comprises executing a media-streaming application that uses the one of the wireless network slices (see, Chen: para. [0037], “a video streaming player (APP 1) is launched in the UE 302 and initiates an initial service request.”, wherein the video streaming player is a media streaming application.).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Mildth in view of Chen and Seidel teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Seidel further teaches wherein wirelessly receiving the slice information that was broadcast from the source wireless access node and that indicates the wireless network slices that are served by the other wireless network nodes comprises wirelessly receiving the slice information in a System Information Block One (SIB1) that was broadcast from the source wireless access node and that indicates the wireless network slices that are served by the other wireless network nodes (see, Seidel: Page 9, lines 29-33, “The signaling of the slice-specific RACH resource configuration specifying the separate RACH resources may be done by extending the system information block 1, SIB-1, or by introducing a new system information block for slicing that may be referred to as SIB-Slice, SIBS. Reusing the SIB-1 may be beneficial because it is sent often and reliable.”).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Mildth in view of Chen and Seidel teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Mildth further teaches wherein wirelessly receiving the slice information that was broadcast from the source wireless access node and that indicates the wireless network slices that are served by the other wireless network nodes comprises wirelessly receiving the slice information that was received by the source wireless access node from the other wireless network nodes over X2 signaling (see, Mildh: para. [0258], “The signaling of slice support can be sent at initial connection setup between network nodes (E.g. at X2/Xn setup between RAN nodes or S1/NG setup between CN and RAN nodes). It can also be done dynamically when the slice availability changes (e.g. event triggered).”; para. [0307], “In certain embodiments, at least a portion of the network slice availability is obtained during an initial connection set up between the first network node and at least one of the neighboring network nodes. For example, each network node in the wireless network may access their own network slice availability, e.g., which network slices are supported on the network node. During initial connection set up between the nodes, network node 200 may communicate its network slice availability information and receive the same from the neighboring nodes. In this manner, network node 200 may obtain network slice availability information during the initial connection set up.”; para. [0311], “network node 200 may broadcast a parameter associated with its network slice availability and/or the network slice availability of one or more of the neighboring network nodes.”, wherein the network node 200 is equivalent to the source wireless access node.).
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 is directed towards one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media (see, Mildh: Fig. 3, Storage 330; para. [0113]) having program instructions stored thereon, wherein the program instructions, when executed by a computing system (see, Mildh: Fig. 3, Processing Circuitry 315), direct the computing system to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 is directed towards the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 8 that is further limited to similar features to claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed towards the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 8 that is further limited to similar features to claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed towards the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 8 that is further limited to similar features to claim 7. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is directed towards a User Equipment (UE) (see, Mildh: Fig. 2, Wireless Device 210; Fig. 3, UE 300) comprising: a radio (see, Mildh: Fig. 3, Radio Circuitry 310) and circuitry (see, Mildh: Fig. 3, Processing Circuitry 315) configured to execute the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed towards the UE of claim 14 that is further limited to similar features to claim 2. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is directed towards the UE of claim 14 that is further limited to similar features to claim 4. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is directed towards the UE of claim 14 that is further limited to similar features to claim 6. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is directed towards the UE of claim 14 that is further limited to similar features to claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 7 above.
Claims 3, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mildh in view of Chen further in view of Seidel further in view of Dahan et al. (US 2020/0053834 A1, hereinafter Dahan).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, Mildth in view of Chen and Seidel teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Although Chen teaches a variety uses cases that NR is expected to support including augmented reality (see, Chen: para. [0105]), Mildh in view of Chen and Seidel does not explicitly teach wherein executing the user application that uses the one of the wireless network slices comprises executing an augmented-reality application that uses the one of the wireless network slices.
In the same field of endeavor, Dahan teaches wherein executing the user application that uses the one of the wireless network slices comprises executing an augmented-reality application that uses the one of the wireless network slices (see, Dahan: para. [0035], “a hypothetical chat application can launch a new augmented reality (AR) feature. … In an aspect, directing the UEs to the new slice can comprise directing new UEs to the new slice, existing UEs to the new slice, or combinations thereof, e.g., existing chat app instances can be re-directed to the new slice, new chat app instances can be directed to employ the new slice, or a combination thereof.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Mildh in view of Chen and Seidel in combination of the teachings of Dahan in order for the UE to select a network slice suitable for augmented reality feature (AR) requiring low latency and high throughput (see, Dahan: para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is directed towards the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 8 that is further limited to similar features to claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is directed towards the UE of claim 14 that is further limited to similar features to claim 3. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mildh in view of Chen further in view of Seidel further in view of Venkataraman et al. (US 2022/0377659 A1, hereinafter Vankataraman).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Mildth in view of Chen and Seidel teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Mildth in view of Chen and Seidel does not explicitly teach wherein wirelessly receiving the slice information that was broadcast from the source wireless access node and that indicates the wireless network slices that are served by the other wireless network nodes comprises wirelessly receiving the slice information in a System Information Block (SIB) that was broadcast from the source wireless access node and that indicates the wireless network slices that are served by the other wireless network nodes.
In the same field of endeavor, Vankataraman teaches wherein wherein wirelessly receiving the slice information that was broadcast from the source wireless access node and that indicates the wireless network slices that are served by the other wireless network nodes comprises wirelessly receiving the slice information in a System Information Block (SIB) that was broadcast from the source wireless access node and that indicates the wireless network slices that are served by the other wireless network nodes (see, Vankataraman: para. [0042], “a 5G NR cell may provide an on-demand SIB that is configured to indicate a set of network slices supported by the cell and/or its neighbor cells.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Mildh in view of Chen and Seidel in combination of the teachings of Vankataraman in order for a cell to provide an on-demand SIB that is configured to indicate a set of network slices supported by the cell and/or its neighbor cells (see, Vankataraman: para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is directed towards the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 8 that is further limited to similar features to claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is directed towards the UE of claim 14 that is further limited to similar features to claim 5. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
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 JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, 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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights