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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/22/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification filed on 11/22/2022 is not complete and is missing pages.
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.
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 1-2, 7-8, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP1 (3GPP TR 23.757 V0.4.0 (2020-06)), in view of Dao et al (US20210105196), in further view of Lee et al (US20230063159).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference 3GPP1 discloses a method (Section 6.2.1 Line 9 discloses that the first UE initiating the MBS service) comprising: receiving information for local multicast service including first service area information related to a multicast session from an Application Function (AF) (Page 107 lines 1-2 discloses that the UE and the AF can exchange application layer signalling. The AF provides multicast service related information); determining, by a user equipment (UE),that the UE is in a service area based on the information for the local multicast service including the first service area information (Page 107 line 26 discloses that the UE detects that it is in the multicast service area based on the Cell ID received in the SIB message); transmitting a first request message, to join the multicast session (Page 107 lines 2-28 discloses that the UE sends a Multicast Join Request message to the AMF to indicate its interest in receiving a particular multicast service). The cited reference 3GPP2 discloses in Page 104 lines 21-22 that the AMF will reject the MB Session Join from UE2 and further discloses in Page 104 lines 31-32 that the AMF checks whether the UE meet the Location Criteria, and reject MB Session Join Request from UE). However, 3GPP1 does not explicitly teach receiving a message related to rejection from a Session Management Function (SMF), wherein the message related to the rejection includes second service area information related to the multicast session, and wherein the second service area information includes a list related to cell identity, or a Tracking Area ID (TAI) list.
In an analogous art the combination of Dao and Lee discloses receiving a message related to rejection from a Session Management Function (SMF), wherein the message related to the rejection includes second service area information related to the multicast session, and wherein the second service area information includes a list related to cell identity, or a Tracking Area ID (TAI) list (Dao discloses in ¶0351 that the SMF 700 rejects the UE request via NAS SM signalling including a relevant SM rejection cause and Lee discloses in ¶0147 transmitting a NAS message (e.g. a Registration Reject message). The NAS message may include Registration Area (RA) information. The RA information may include a Tracking Area Identifier (TAI) list including one or more TAIs).
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 and Lee to send an MB session joining reject or cancel message based on the first location information to improve the usage efficiency of the network resources and the flexibility of the network.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of 3GPP1, Dao, and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 1. Dao further discloses wherein the message related to the rejection includes rejection cause 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 3GPP1 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 (Section 6.2.1 Line9 discloses that the first UE initiating the MBS service, it is known for skilled in the art that the UE is apparatus/hardware that include a processor and memory that used to store programs) 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 3GPP1, Dao, and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 7. 3GPP1 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 (See Figure 6.2.1-2).
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 17, the cited reference 3GPP1 discloses all limitations of claim 1. 3GPP1 further discloses wherein information about local multicast service includes geographic area information or civic address information (Page 105 Line 2 discloses that the AF
provides multicast service area information with geographical area information).
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 1, 3-4, 7, 11, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP1 (3GPP TR 23.757 V0.4.0 (2020-06)), in view of Jin et al (US20200037214).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference 3GPP1 discloses a method (Section 6.2.1 Line 9 discloses that the first UE initiating the MBS service) comprising: receiving information for local multicast service including first service area information related to a multicast session from an Application Function (AF) (Page 107 lines 1-2 discloses that the UE and the AF can exchange application layer signalling. The AF provides multicast service related information); determining, by a user equipment (UE),that the UE is in a service area based on the information for the local multicast service including the first service area information (Page 107 line 26 discloses that the UE detects that it is in the multicast service area based on the Cell ID received in the SIB message); transmitting a first request message, to join the multicast session (Page 107 lines 2-28 discloses that the UE sends a Multicast Join Request message to the AMF to indicate its interest in receiving a particular multicast service). The cited reference 3GPP2 discloses in Page 104 lines 21-22 that the AMF will reject the MB Session Join from UE2 and further discloses in Page 104 lines 31-32 that the AMF checks whether the UE meet the Location Criteria, and reject MB Session Join Request from UE). However, 3GPP1 does not explicitly teach receiving a message related to rejection from a Session Management Function (SMF), wherein the message related to the rejection includes second service area information related to the multicast session, and wherein the second service area information includes a list related to cell identity, or a Tracking Area ID (TAI) list.
In an analogous art the cited reference Jin discloses receiving a message related to rejection from a Session Management Function (SMF), wherein the message related to the rejection includes second service area information related to the multicast session, and wherein the second service area information includes a list related to cell identity, or a Tracking Area ID (TAI) list (¶0200-¶0201 discloses that the first base station receives the first request sent by the terminal… the first base station sends a first request rejection message to the terminal. The first request rejection message may include at least one of a cell list or a target base station (Target cell ID)).
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 Jin to improve the usage efficiency of the network resources and the flexibility of the network.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of 3GPP1 and Jin discloses all limitations of claim 1. 3GPP1 further 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).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of 3GPP1 and Jin discloses all limitations of claim 3. 3GPP1 further discloses based on that the UE detects that the UE is located inside the service area, transmitting a second request message to join 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 7, the cited reference 3GPP1 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 (Section 6.2.1 Line9 discloses that the first UE initiating the MBS service, it is known for skilled in the art that the UE is apparatus/hardware that include a processor and memory that used to store programs) 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 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 UE 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 UE 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 3GPP1 (3GPP TR 23.757 V0.4.0 (2020-06)), in view of Jin et al (US20200037214), in further view of Ling et al (US20240040339).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of 3GPP1 and Jin 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
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