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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/14/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues “…This does not teach or suggest “a request for
establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session for a multicast broadcast service (MBS)” as recited in Claim 16. Dao merely discloses that the request is used for a retransmission of missing PDU packet, Dao however fails to disclose that the request is used for reestablishing the PDU session for the MBS as recited in Claim 16. In other words, Claim 16 explains that the PDU session establishment request message is transmitted via the AMF to the SMF. Merely disclosing the “request” as cited in Dao does not teach or suggest such claim limitation. Therefore, Dao does not disclose “the SMF receives a PDU session establishment request message from AMF” as recited in Claim 16.” See pages 11-12 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Dao discloses step 706: One of the following network functions may request the SMF 310 to establish a MB Session. See paragraphs [0206]-[0207] and figure 7A. Therefore, Dao discloses “the SMF receives a PDU session establishment request message from AMF” as recited in Claim 16.”
The applicant argues “Dao does not teach or suggest “an identifier of a session for the MBS and a current location information of the terminal included in the first message” as recited in Claim 16… The identifier of the session for the MBS as recited in Claim 16 is for distinguishing logical MBS services. In contrast, the DL TEID as cited in Dao is a value for setting a user plane path for data transmission. Therefore, the two concepts are completely different and Dao does not teach the identifier of the session as recited in Claim 16. Furthermore, the MB session establishment response message containing the DL TEID as cited in Dao does not disclose the PDU session establishment request message containing the identifier of the session for the MBS as cited in Claim 16. In para. [0111], Dao discloses: (1) the list of (R)AN nodes refers to “a list of addresses of (R)AN nodes currently covering the ED group (terminal group) included in the MB session” or “addresses of gNBs belonging to a specific geographical area” for setting the service area and (ii) the message containing the list of (R)AN nodes is the N11 MB session announcement response message. In other words, the list of (R)AN nodes as cited in Dao is completely different from the terminal's current location information, as recited in Claim 16, which is provided for selecting a session based on where the user is currently located, and the message containing that information is also different. Further, Dao does not disclose “the identifier of the session for the MBS” and “the current location information of the terminal” as recited in Claim 16.” See pages 12-13 of applicant’s remarks. The 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., The identifier of the session for the MBS as recited in Claim 16 is for distinguishing logical MBS services. In contrast, the DL TEID as cited in Dao is a value for setting a user plane path for data transmission. Therefore, the two concepts are completely different and Dao does not teach the identifier of the session as recited in Claim 16.) 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 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., the MB session establishment response message containing the DL TEID as cited in Dao does not disclose the PDU session establishment request message containing the identifier of the session for the MBS as cited in Claim 16.) 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).
Dao discloses “… the request message may include information in step 704, or additional information, for example the MB Session ID (i.e., the identifier of the session for the MBS), an internal ED Group ID (e.g. Internal-Group ID, or TMGI—Temporary Mobile Group Identifier), network function information (e.g. AMF Address, PCF Address, NEF Address, Address(es) of UPF(s) to be the Anchor MB Session), location information of MB Session (e.g. (R)AN Addresses, Geographical Zone ID(s)) (i.e., the current location information of the terminal), etc.” See paragraph [0207]. Therefore, Dao discloses “an identifier of a session for the MBS and a current location information of the terminal included in the first message” as recited in Claim 16.
The applicant argues “Dao does not also teach the “subscription information” as recited in Claim 16… However, Dao does not disclose the subscription information including information indicating whether the terminal is authorized to use the MBS and an identity of at least one session of the MBS allowed for the terminal as recited in Claim 16. Dao fails to disclose the information indicating whether the terminal is authorized to use MBS as recited in Claim 16. Although the list of ED IDs as cited in Dao can be interpreted as a list of IDs of terminals authorized to use the MBS as recited in Claim 16, Dao fails to disclose information explicitly indicating “authorization status” as in Claim 16.” See pages 13-14 of applicant’s remarks. The 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., Dao fails to disclose information explicitly indicating “authorization status” as in Claim 16.) 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).
Dao discloses sending a MB Session information response message (in other words, second message comprising subscription information)… This response message may include ED Group ID (e.g. Internal-Group ID), list of ED IDs of EDs in the ED Group (for example, considered as information indicating whether the terminal is authorized to use the MBS), Location Information of MB Session (e.g. Addresses of RAN nodes, Geographical Zone ID(s)) (in other words, considered as information indicating an identity of at least one session of the MBS allowed for the terminal), and Network Function information if available (e.g. serving AMF, UPF Address(es), NEF Address)…See paragraph [0215]. Therefore, Dao discloses “subscription information” and the subscription information including information indicating whether the terminal is authorized to use the MBS and an identity of at least one session of the MBS allowed for the terminal as recited in Claim 16.
The applicant argues “Dao does not teach or suggest “determining an authentication result of the request for establishing the PDU session based on the subscription information of the terminal” as recited in Claim 16.” See page 14 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Dao discloses the SMF 310 may send a MB Session Policy Request message to the selected PCF 316. This message may include an ED Group ID (e.g. Internal-Group ID, TMGI), AF-Service-Identifier, Network Slice Information (e.g. S-NSSAI). The MB Session Policy Request message is sent based on the authentication of the MB Session information request message. The authentication is determined/performed in steps 714 and 716 as described in paragraphs [0217] and [0218].
Dao discloses the UDM 320 can receive requests to retrieve content stored in the UDR 321, or requests to store content in the UDR 321. The UDM 320 is typically responsible for functionality such as the processing of credentials, location management and subscription management. The UDR 321 may also support any or all of Authentication Credential Processing, User Identification handling, Access Authorization, Registration/Mobility management, subscription management, and Short Message Service (SMS) management… the UDR 321 may store policy data, as well as user subscription data which may include any or all of subscription identifiers, security credentials, access and mobility related subscription data and session related data. See paragraph [0047]. Dao teaches required authentication of the terminal/user equipment/electronic device.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s statement “However, Dao does not disclose: (i) the subscription information and (ii) authentication as recited in Claim 16. Dao does not also disclose that the response to the MB session establishment request is based on the authentication result as recited in Claim 16.-see page 14”, for the same reasons as already presented above.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s statement “Dao further fails to disclose
the at least one of an identifier of at least one session of the MBS and the current location information of the terminal as recited in Claim 16.-see page 15”, for the same reasons as already presented above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16, 19-20, 23-24, 27-28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dao et al. (Dao), U.S. Publication No, 2019/0158985.
Regarding Claims 16 and 24, Dao discloses a method performed by a session
management function (SMF) in a communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from an access and mobility management function (AMF), a first message comprising information on a request for establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session (for example, request for missing PDU packets; see paragraph [0241]) for a multicast broadcast service (MBS) (i.e., the term “MB Service” is used to indicate a Multicast or Broadcast type data transfer service provided by a communication network; see paragraph [0054]), wherein the first message includes an identifier of a session for the MBS (i.e., the DL TEID is included in the MB Session Establishment Response message; see paragraph [0245]) and current location information of a terminal (i.e., the message may include the list of (R)AN nodes (RAN Addresses) that are part of the MB session (as they currently serve the group of EDs 102), the (R)AN nodes belonging to the geographical areas that have EDs to receive MB data.; see paragraph [0111]);
receiving, from a unified data management (UDM), a second message comprising subscription information of the terminal, the subscription information of the terminal including information indicating whether the terminal is authorized to use the MBS and an identity of at least one session of the MBS allowed for the terminal (i.e., the UDM 320 sends a MB Session Information Response to the SMF 310, which includes information received from the UDR 321 in step 710b. The UDM 320 may also send to the SMF 310 the Internal-Group ID or the TMGI, list of ED IDs, Subscription information related to ED Group (e.g. Maximum bit rate of MB Session, Maximum traffic volume in a certain period), Network Slice Information (e.g. S-NSSAI).; see paragraph [0216]);
performing an authentication for establishing the PDU session based on the subscription information of the terminal which is received from the UDM (in other words, The SMF 310 sends a MB Session Policy Request message to the selected PCF 316.; see paragraphs [0218] and [0285]); and
transmitting, to the terminal, a third message as a response to the first message according to a result of the authentication, the third message comprising information on a result of the establishing the PDU session (i.e., the SMF may include AMS UPF information, such as UPF Address(es) and DL TEID for the NEF to send DL packets to the UPF(s); see paragraph [0254]),
wherein the third message includes at least one of an identifier of at least one session of the MBS (for example, DL TEID; see paragraph [0254]), determined based on the current location information of the terminal (for example, User Plane (UP) Function (UPF) 304 such as a UP Gateway; see paragraphs [0038] and [0254]) and the identifier of the session for the MBS (for example, DL TEID; see paragraph [0254]).
Regarding Claims 19, 23, 27 and 30, Dao discloses wherein
the identity of the at least one session of the MBS allowed for the terminal comprises a temporary mobile group identity (TMGI) for the MBS (see paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claims 20 and 28, Dao discloses a method performed by a terminal
in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a session management function (SMF) via an access and mobility management function (AMP), a first message comprising information on a request for establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session (for example, request for missing PDU packets; see paragraph [0241]) for a multicast broadcast service (MBS) (i.e., the term “MB Service” is used to indicate a Multicast or Broadcast type data transfer service provided by a communication network; see paragraph [0054]), wherein the first message includes an identifier of a session for the MBS (i.e., the DL TEID is included in the MB Session Establishment Response message; see paragraph [0245]) and current location information of the terminal (i.e., the message may include the list of (R)AN nodes (RAN Addresses) that are part of the MB session (as they currently serve the group of EDs 102), the (R)AN nodes belonging to the geographical areas that have EDs to receive MB data.; see paragraph [0111]); and
in case that an authentication for the PDU session is successfully performed
based on subscription information of the terminal, receiving, from the SMF, a second message as a response to the first message, the second message comprising information on a result of the establishing the PDU session (i.e., the SMF may include AMS UPF information, such as UPF Address(es) and DL TEID for the NEF to send DL packets to the UPF(s); see paragraph [0254]),
wherein the subscription information of the terminal includes information
indicating whether the terminal is authorized to use the MBS and an identity of at least one session of the MBS allowed for the terminal, and the subscription information of the terminal is retrieved from an unified data management (UDM), and the authentication for the PDU session is performed by the SMF based on the subscription information of the terminal which is received from the UDM (i.e., the UDM 320 sends a MB Session Information Response to the SMF 310, which includes information received from the UDR 321 in step 710b. The UDM 320 may also send to the SMF 310 the Internal-Group ID or the TMGI, list of ED IDs, Subscription information related to ED Group (e.g. Maximum bit rate of MB Session, Maximum traffic volume in a certain period), Network Slice Information (e.g. S-NSSAI).; see paragraph [0216]), and
wherein the second message includes at least one of an identifier of at least one
session of the MBS (for example, DL TEID; see paragraph [0254]), determined based on the current location information of the terminal (for example, User Plane (UP) Function (UPF) 304 such as a UP Gateway; see paragraphs [0038] and [0254]) and the identifier of the session for the MBS (for example, DL TEID; see paragraph [0254]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17-18, 21-22, 25-26 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao in view of Kim et al. (Kim), U.S. Publication No. 2020/0178048.
Regarding Claims 17, 21, 25 and 29, Dao discloses the method, SMF and terminal as described above. Dao fails to disclose wherein the first message is received based on a selection performed by the AMF based on a data network name (DNN) for the MBS and information on a network slice for the MBS. Kim discloses wherein the first message is received based on a selection performed by the AMF based on a data network name (DNN) for the MBS and information on a network slice for the MBS (see paragraphs [0283]-[0286]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kim’s invention with Dao’s invention for providing advanced mobile communication systems as described in paragraphs [0002] and [0003] of Kim.
Regarding Claims 18, 22, 26 and 29, Dao discloses the method, SMF and terminal as described above. Dao fails to disclose wherein the first message comprises at least one of a data network name (DNN) for the MBS or information on a slice for the MBS. Kim discloses wherein the first message comprises at least one of a data network name (DNN) for the MBS or information on a slice for the MBS (see paragraphs [0283]-[0286]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kim’s invention with Dao’s invention for providing advanced mobile communication systems as described in paragraphs [0002] and [0003] of Kim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANTELL LAKETA HEIBER whose telephone number is (571)272-0886. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Addy, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-0886. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHANTELL L HEIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
October 3, 2025