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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catt (Update of Local MBS Procedures, S2-2104283, 3GPP TSG SA WG2 Meeting #145-e, 10 May 2021), hereinafter Catt, in view of Ryu (US 20230085130 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, 7, 11, 17, Catt discloses (Currently Amended) A method of controlling multicast and broadcast service (MBS) by a session management function (SMF) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: [Page 3: The local multicast session] obtaining information on an MBS service area of an MBS session, wherein the MBS service area is a cell ID list or a tracking area ID (TAI) list; [Page 4: MBS service area (i.e. Cell ID list or TAI list)] wherein the UE mobility event notification indicates that the UE moving into or out of the MBS service area; receiving, from the AMF, user location information for the UE; and determining whether the UE is outside the MBS service area based on the user location information for the UE. [Page 4: In step 5, the SMF checks whether the UE is inside or outside the MBS service area]
Catt is silent with regards to subscribing to a user equipment (UE) mobility event notification from a mobility management function (AMF) by invoking a Namf EventExposure Subscribe service operation to the AMF.
Ryu teaches to subscribing to a user equipment (UE) mobility event notification from a mobility management function (AMF) by invoking a Namf EventExposure Subscribe service operation to the AMF (Paragraph 265).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Catt with the teachings of Ryu to ensure the SMF obtains the information about the QoS flows for multicast from the MB- SMF.
Regarding Claim 2, 8, 12, 18, Catt and Ryu disclose (Original) The method of claim 1. Furthermore, Catt discloses further comprising: in response to the UE being out of the MBS service area, deleting an associated QoS flow for the MBS session. [Page 4: If the SMF detects that the UE is outside the MBS service area, the SMF rejects the multicast session join via the Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext response]
Regarding Claim 4, 14, Catt and Ryu disclose (Original) The method of claim 1. Furthermore, Catt discloses further comprising: transmitting, to the AMF, a NamfEventExposure_ subscribe message to subscribe to the UE mobility event notification from the AMF. [Page 4: If the SMF detects that the UE is outside the MBS service area, the SMF rejects the multicast session join via the Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext response]
Regarding Claim 5, 10, 16, 20, Catt and Ryu disclose (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1.
Furthermore, Catt discloses wherein the user location information for the UE includes a cell ID for a target NG-RAN to which the UE moved or a tracking area 1D-[[(]] TAI [J]] for the target NG-RAN. [Page 4: obtaining the MBS service area (i.e. Cell ID list or TAI list) of the indicated MBS session. ]
Regarding Claim 7, Catt discloses a method of controlling multicast and broadcast service (MBS) by an access and mobility management function (AMF) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: [Page 3: The local multicast session]
wherein the UE mobility event notification indicates that the UE moving into or out of an MBS service area of an MBS session, wherein the MBS service area is a cell ID list or a tracking area ID (TAI) list; [Page 4: MBS service area (i.e. Cell ID list or TAI list)]
Claim(s) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catt (Update of Local MBS Procedures, S2-2104283, 3GPP TSG SA WG2 Meeting #145-e, 10 May 2021), hereinafter Catt, in view of Ryu (US 20230085130 A1) and futher in view of Nokia et al. (PCC Impacts of 5MBS, S2-2104017, 3GPP TSG SA WG2 Meeting #145-e, 10 May 2021).
Regarding Claim 6, 15 Catt and Ryu are silent with regards to discloses wherein the UE moves from the MBS service area to [[the]] outside of the MBS service area through an N2 handover.
However, Nokia discloses wherein the UE moves from the MBS service area to [[the]] outside of the MBS service area through an N2 handover. [Page 9: Subscribing to the UE mobility event notification service provided by the AMF for reporting of UE presence in Area of Interest which reports when the UE enters or leaves a Presence Reporting Area.]
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to include wherein the UE moves from the MBS service area to [[the]] outside of the MBS service area through an N2 handover as taught by Nokia in view of Catt and Ryu for the purposes of ensuring the SMF obtains the information about QoS flows for multicast from the MB-SMF.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Sujoy K Kundu whose telephone number is (571)272-8586. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
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.
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471