DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The instant application 17/927,128 is filed on 11/22/2022 and claims the benefit of foreign applications:
KR 10-2020-0061451 filed on 05.22.2020
KR 10-2020-0103313 filed on 08.18.2020
KR 10-2020-0122446 filed on 09.22.2020
KR 10-2021-0012434 filed on 01.28.2021
The disclosure of the prior-filed foreign application KR 10-2020-0061451 and KR 10-2020-0103313 filed on 05/22/2020, failed to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for the subject matter of the independent claims.
Therefore, the priority dates 05/22/2020 is not granted.
Examiner Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Examiner Response to Amendments
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification filed on 11/22/2022 is not complete.
PNG
media_image1.png
347
998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US20230209573), in view of Guo et al (US20230188976).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Baek discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE) from an Application Function (AF), information related to local multicast service including first service area information related to for a multicast session; determining, by the UE, that the UE is in a service area based on the information; transmitting, by the UE to a Session Management Function (SMF), a first request message related to joining the multicast session (¶0012 discloses receiving, from an application function (AF), a multicast service announcement message including first information related to a local multicast and broadcast service (MBS), identifying that the UE is located in a local MBS area, and transmitting, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), a multicast session join request message for joining a multicast session for the local MBS, the multicast session join request message including second information corresponding to the first information), wherein the first request message includes an identity for the multicast session (¶0015 discloses that the second information included in the multicast session join request message may include …an ID of an MBS service session to be joined by the UE). However, the cited reference Baek does not explicitly teach receiving, by the UE from the SMF, a message related to a rejection of the joining the multicast session, wherein the message related to the rejection includes at least one of a rejection cause related to the multicast session, or second service area information related to the multicast session, and wherein the second service area information includes at least one of a list related to cell identity, or a Tracking Area Identity (TAI) list.
In an analogous art the combination of Guo discloses receiving, by the UE from the SMF, a message related to a rejection of the joining the multicast session, wherein the message related to the rejection includes at least one of a rejection cause related to the multicast session, or second service area information related to the multicast session, and wherein the second service area information includes at least one of a list related to cell identity, or a Tracking Area Identity (TAI) list (¶0205 discloses that the SMF 1 may notify, through the UPF 1, the accessdevice and the UE that the multicast service data transmission is rejected. For example, the SMF 1 sends a user plane event announcement response message to the UPF 1, where the message is a signaling plane message, and the message carries an indication and/or a rejection cause value for rejecting the multicast service data transmission. Then, the UPF 1 sends the indication and/or the rejection cause value for the multicast service data transmission to the access device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Guo to ignore or reject requests from UE to join the multicast service session when the UE is out of the multicast service area to improve the usage efficiency of the network resources and the flexibility of the network.
Regarding claim 7, the cited reference Baek discloses a user Equipment (UE) comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory for storing instructions and operably electrically connectable with the at least one processor, wherein the operations performed based on the execution of the instructions by the at least one processor (Fig. 4 discloses that the UE may include a transceiver 410, a memory 420, and a controller 430 (also referred to as processor 430)) to perform substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Baek and Guo discloses all limitations of claim 7. Baek and Guo further discloses wherein the UE is an autonomous driving device communicating with at least one of a mobile terminal, a network and an autonomous vehicle other than the UE (Baek discloses in ¶0009 that the transmitting data via multicast/broadcast to a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) service and Guo discloses transmitting a multicast service to a terminal device UE and ¶0098 discloses that the terminal device may be deployed on a wireless terminal in self driving (self driving) or vehicle-mounted deployment).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Baek and Guo discloses all limitations of claim 1. Baek further discloses wherein information about local multicast service includes geographic area information or civic address information (¶0014 discloses that the multicast service announcement message may further include at least one of an ID of an MBS service session provided to the UE, service area information for a global MBS, an ID of a global AF, an FQDN of the global AF, or address information for a global MBSU).
Claims 1-2, 7, 11-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US20230209573), in view of in view of Dao et al (US20210105196).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Baek discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE) from an Application Function (AF), information related to local multicast service including first service area information related to for a multicast session; determining, by the UE, that the UE is in a service area based on the information; transmitting, by the UE to a Session Management Function (SMF), a first request message related to joining the multicast session (¶0012 discloses receiving, from an application function (AF), a multicast service announcement message including first information related to a local multicast and broadcast service (MBS), identifying that the UE is located in a local MBS area, and transmitting, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), a multicast session join request message for joining a multicast session for the local MBS, the multicast session join request message including second information corresponding to the first information), wherein the first request message includes an identity for the multicast session (¶0015 discloses that the second information included in the multicast session join request message may include …an ID of an MBS service session to be joined by the UE). However, the cited reference Baek does not explicitly teach receiving, by the UE from the SMF, a message related to a rejection of the joining the multicast session, wherein the message related to the rejection includes at least one of a rejection cause related to the multicast session, or second service area information related to the multicast session, and wherein the second service area information includes at least one of a list related to cell identity, or a Tracking Area Identity (TAI) list.
In an analogous art the combination of Dao discloses receiving, by the UE from the SMF, a message related to a rejection of the joining the multicast session, wherein the message related to the rejection includes at least one of a rejection cause related to the multicast session, or second service area information related to the multicast session, and wherein the second service area information includes at least one of a list related to cell identity, or a Tracking Area Identity (TAI) list (¶0351 that the SMF 700 rejects the UE request via NAS SM signalling including a relevant SM rejection cause).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Dao to ignore or reject requests from UE to join the multicast service session when the UE is out of the multicast service area to improve the usage efficiency of the network resources and the flexibility of the network.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Baek and Dao discloses all limitations of claim 1. Dao further discloses wherein the rejection includes rejection cause is related to that the UE is outside the service area (¶0351 discloses that the SMF 700 rejects the UE request via NAS SM signalling including a relevant SM rejection cause and ¶0091 discloses that rejection cause may include the UE is out of MB service area).
Regarding claim 7, the cited reference Baek discloses a user Equipment (UE) comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory for storing instructions and operably electrically connectable with the at least one processor, wherein the operations performed based on the execution of the instructions by the at least one processor (Fig. 4 discloses that the UE may include a transceiver 410, a memory 420, and a controller 430 (also referred to as processor 430)) to perform substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 2. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is drawn to a UE performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 2. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 2.
Claims 3-4, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US20230209573), in view of Guo et al (US20230188976), in further view of 3GPP (3GPP TR 23.757 V0.4.0 (2020-06)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Baek and Guo discloses all limitations of claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly teach detecting whether the UE is located inside the service area based on the second service area information provided in the message related to the rejection.
In an analogous art the combination of 3GPP discloses detecting whether the UE is located inside the service area based on the second service area information provided in the message related to the rejection (Page 107 discloses in step 10 and 12 sending a Multicast Service Area Response message to the UE which includes the List of Cell IDs…the UE detects that it is in the multicast service area based on the Cell ID received).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of 3GPP to allow the terminal device to obtain a service if the terminal device is located in the first non-restricted area.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Baek, Guo, and 3GPP discloses all limitations of claim 3. 3GPP further discloses based on that the UE detects that the UE is located inside the service area, transmitting a second request message related to joining the multicast session (Page 107 discloses in step 13 that the UE sends a Multicast Join Request message to the AMF to indicate its interest in receiving a particular multicast service).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 3. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 4. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 3. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 4. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 4.
Claims 5, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US20230209573), in view of Guo et al (US20230188976), in further view of 3GPP (3GPP TR 23.757 V0.4.0 (2020-06)), in further view of Ling et al (US20240040339).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Baek, Guo, and 3GPP discloses all limitations of claim 3. However, the combination does not explicitly teach based on that the UE does not detect that the UE is not located inside the service area, a second request message, to join the multicast session is not transmitted.
In an analogous art Ling teaches based on that the UE does not detect that the UE is not located inside the service area, a second request message, to join the multicast session is not transmitted (¶0110 discloses that if UE determines that it is outside the local service area, it is prohibited from sending MB Session Join Request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Ling to save power and reduce overhead and resources.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 5. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 5.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is drawn to a UE performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 5. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 5.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (571)272-3927. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights