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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first action on the merits, in response to application filed February 07, 2025. Claims 1-13, are currently pending.
Priority
Certified copy of priority document JP 2020-068994 dated April 07, 2020, is acknowledged which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 02/07/2025, 11/18/2025, 03/11/2026 and 05/15/2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1-13, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12 and 13 are failing to set forth the preamble of claim, using transitional phrase to define the scope of the claim (See MPEP 2111.03 [R-3]) to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent (See MPEP 2173 [R-11.2013]).
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, 8, 10, 12, 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirata et al (hereinafter Hirata) (US 2019/0215761).
Regarding claim 1, 12, 13, Hirata discloses a communication terminal apparatus in a communication system, the communication system comprising
the communication terminal apparatus (element 40, figs. 4, 8) and a base station apparatus (element 10, figs. 3, 8) configured to perform radio communication with the communication terminal apparatus (the base station 10 determines whether the connection of a new terminal 40 maybe allowed using each of the slices, by checking the resources of the base station 10 for each slice. In the example of Step S1, it is possible for the slice 1 through the slice 3 to connect a new terminal 40) (paras. 0031-0033),
wherein the communication terminal apparatus is configured to receive slice information on a slice of a Radio Access Network (RAN) from the base station apparatus (the base station 10 reports the generated reporting information on connectable slices (Step S3, S4), upon reception of the initial connection (step S7), slice linked to connection mode C is done before the corresponding resources are allocated (stepsS9, S10, S34)) (paras. 0003, 0031, 0032, 0039, 0053, 0054, 0057, 0058; figs. 2, 8).
Regarding claim 2, Hirata discloses wherein the slice information includes first information for identifying the slice, and second information on a cell that supports the slice (the base station 10 identifies the connection mode for each of the slices, using information stored in advance. In the example in fig. 2, the base station 10 has stored a connection mode correspondence list 33. In the connection mode correspondence list 33, it has been recorded that for the connection to the slice 1, a connection mode A is to be used, for the connection to the slice 2, a connection mode B is to be used, and for the connection to the slice 3, a connection mode C is to be used. In addition, it has been recorded that, for a terminal 40 for which no particular slice is to be specified (connected by default), a connection mode X is to be used. Using the result of the resource check, the base station 10 creates reporting information that includes, for each slice to which a new terminal 40 can be connected, a corresponding service and connection mode (Step S2). The base station 10 reports the generated reporting information (Step S3)) (paras. 0031, 0032).
Regarding claim 8, Hirata discloses wherein the communication terminal apparatus is configured to receive a broadcast signal including the slice information (the receiver 14 performs the receiving process for signals. The communicating unit 12 performs the communication process with other base stations 10, as well as the communication process with devices in the core network. The resource information obtaining unit 21 regularly checks the usage condition of the resources held by the base station 10 for each slice and records the obtained result as the slice resource information 32) (para. 0037).
Regarding claim 10, Hirata discloses wherein the communication terminal apparatus is configured to receive a dedicated signal addressed to the communication terminal apparatus, the dedicated signal including the slice information (the RACH channel type may implicitly include network slice identifier information) (para. 0238).
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, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al (hereinafter Hirata) (US 2019/0215761) in view of Jin et al (hereinafter Jin) (US 2019/0357103).
Regarding claim 3, Hirata discloses limitation noted above with claim 1. Hirata does not expressly show wherein the second information includes information on a Physical Cell Identifier (PCI) for identifying the cell that supports the slice. Jin discloses a base station that has a communications interface to the source base station and that supports a network slice corresponding to some of current sessions of the terminal device. Information about each of the at least one base station includes at least one of: a base station identifier of each base station, an identifier of a central unit of each base station, an identifier of a distributed unit of each base station, an identifier of a physical cell of each base station (paras. 0026, 0027). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Jin with the base station apparatus of Hirata for the benefit of provide at least one base station supports a network slice corresponding to the current session of the terminal device.
Claim(s) 4-6, 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al (hereinafter Hirata) (US 2019/0215761) in view of Hong et al (hereinafter Hong) (US 2020/0059987).
Regarding claim 4, Hirata discloses all limitation of the claim 1 noted above. Hirata does not expressly show wherein terminal apparatus is configured to perform cell reselection for the slice, using the second information. Hong discloses wherein terminal apparatus is configured to perform cell reselection for the slice, using the second information (while the UE transmits and receives data through network slicing in the source cell, the UE may request a network slicing service to an application server for supporting the specific network slice through unicast, reselect a cell supporting/allowing the specific network slice, or reselect a cell by generating a cell reselection priority of the cell not supporting/allowing the specific network slice to be a lower priority) (para. 0072). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Hong with the communication system of Hirata for the benefit of allow the UE perform cell reselection based on the cell reselection priority assigned to a cell supporting/allowing the specific network slice related system information.
Regarding claim 5, Hirata in view of Hong discloses limitation noted above. Hong further discloses in the cell reselection, preferentially select the cell that supports the slice (paras. 0072, 0074).
Regarding claim 6, Hirata in view of Hong discloses limitation noted above. Hong further discloses wherein the communication terminal apparatus is configured to exclude a cell that does not support the slice in the cell reselection (When the neighbor cell does not support/allow the specific network slice, while the UE transmits and receives data through network slicing in the source cell, the UE may request a network slicing service to an application server for supporting the specific network slice) (para. 0072).
Regarding claim 7, Hirata discloses wherein the communication terminal apparatus is configured to receive slice information on a slice of a Radio Access Network (RAN), however does not disclose wherein the communication system further includes an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) node that is a core network node, the communication terminal apparatus is configured to select a cell that supports the slice, using a priority of the slice determined the AMF node.
Hong in a similar field of endeavor discloses a UE receives the network slice information through the system information in the serving cell, ii) when a specific network slice is configured for the UE in advance, and/or iii) when a specific network slice is configured for the UE through a network, the UE may indicate network slice request information on this to a base station through a core network entity (e.g., an access and mobility management function (AMF) which is a 5G core network entity) (paras. 0114, 0118). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Hong with the communication system of Hirata for the benefit of provide core network entity (e.g., an AMF which is a 5G core network entity) may transmit specific network slice information to a base station through a procedure for setting up a UE context.
Claim(s) 9, 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al (hereinafter Hirata) (US 2019/0215761) in view of Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) (US 2020/0022095).
Regarding claim 9, Hirata discloses all limitation noted above with claim 1. Hirata does not expressly teach wherein the broadcast signal is a System Information Block (SIB) included in Other System Information (Other SI). Kim discloses a process in which priority information per frequency for cell reselection is broadcasted through an SIB or applied to a user equipment through an RRC Connection Release message as dedicated RRC signaling in a wireless communication system (para. 0078). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Kim with the communication system of Hirata for the benefit of provide the frequency priority information provided through the SIB instead of the priority information provided through the RRC Connection.
Regarding claim 11, Hirata discloses wherein the communication terminal apparatus is configured to receive slice information on a slice of a Radio Access Network (RAN), however does not disclose wherein the communication system further includes an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) node that is a core network node, and the communication terminal apparatus is configured to transmit a registration request including information on a desired slice to the AMF node.
Kim in a similar field of endeavor discloses a UE 305 may transmit to the base station 310, information about a slice at which the UE 305 is registered or which the UE 305 supports, the base station 310 may receive slice information supportable per frequency or cell from a core network, for example, an AMF (paras. 0102, 0103). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Kim with the communication system of Hirata for the benefit of providing priority information per frequency or cell to be applied on cell reselection when a specific user equipment is transitioned.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUTBUDDIN GHULAMALI whose telephone number is (571) 272-3014. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 4:00pm.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571 272 3042. 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.
/QUTBUDDIN GHULAMALI/
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2632.
Prosecution Insights