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 .
Priority
1. The present application is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2021/100708 filed 06/17/2021.
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. a. Certified copy of application CN202010820157.4 was received on 02/03/2023.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 is indefinite for two reasons.
First, claim 4 recites “the UE context response message carries all MBS session context related information related to the UE”. It is unclear what the bounds of “all MBS session context related information related to the UE” is.
Second, the UE recites (twice) “information expected by the UE”. It is unclear what is meant by this. UEs are machines, and cannot “expect” anything.
The claim is therefore indefinite, and rejected.
5. Claims 6 – 8 and 14 – 15 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. Claim 6 recites “expected MBS session context list information”. It is unclear to the Examiner what “expected” means in this context. Machines cannot “expect” anything. An expectation is a belief, which machines do not have. The claim is therefore indefinite, and rejected along with its dependent claims; claims 14 – 15 are treated similarly.
6. Claims 9 – 10 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. Claim 9 recites a “User Port Entity, UPF[sic]”. A User Port Entity is not a known term in the art, and while the Applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer, a reading of the original disclosure does not detail the bounds of this phrase (or, if this might be a typo intended to be a User Plane Function). The claim is therefore indefinite, and is rejected along with its dependent claims.
7. Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 recites “releasing the[sic] common forwarding channel”. There is a lack of antecedent basis, here. The claim is therefore indefinite, and rejected.
8. Claim 13 is 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. Claim 13 recites limitations in the form of:
A; wherein:
B; or
C; or
D
It is unclear to the Examiner what the logical structure of this claim is. In other words, whether the claim resolves to
1: (A AND B) OR C OR D
2: (A AND B) OR (A AND C) OR (A AND D)
The claim is therefore indefinite, and rejected.
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.
9. Claim(s) 1 – 3, 11 – 12, 16 – 17, 27, and 35 - 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 #111e R2-2007628) in view of Zhu (US 20230027425 A1)
Regarding claim 1, 3GPP discloses subject matter regarding technical discussions of MBS mobility. Specifically, 3GPP discloses a Multimedia Broadcast Service, MBS, data communication method (MBS; see Title), applied to a network side device of a target cell (target gNB; see Fig. 1), comprising:
sending a UE context request message to a source cell and obtaining MBS session context related information from the source cell for a UE in an in-active state that moves to the target cell (handover to target triggers UE MBS context sent from source gNB to target gNB; see Fig.1 and associated description; the Examiner notes that the HO comprises messages from target gNB to source gNB, and understands this as encompassing the UE context request, as the result is a UE context being transferred from source to target);
performing MBS data communication after the target cell establishes an MBS session context (MBS session is transferred; see section 2).
3GPP does not explicitly disclose that this is done for a UE in RRC_INACTIVE.
Zhu discloses subject matter relating to MBS mobility. Specifically, Zhu discloses handovers occurring for an MBS session while a device is in RRC_INACTIVE (see paragraphs [0057 – 0065] and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of 3GPP with Zhu by specifying that the context request and exchange can occur for a UE in RRC_INACTIVE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as the context is still available to be moved from gNB to gNB in RRC_INACTIVE and would save the trouble of reestablishing it. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, 3GPP and Zhu teaches the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 2. However, Zhu discloses
performing the MBS data communication through a common forwarding channel with the source cell and/or an N3 channel with a core network (MBS context for MBS flow is done through N3 tunnel; see paragraph [0078])
Regarding claim 3, 3GPP and Zhu teaches the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 3. However, Zhu discloses
configuring an MBS resource and sending the MBS resource to the UE through an RRC connection message after the target cell establishes the MBS session context (MRB context setup and data transmission using RRC signaling; see paragraph [0079]; the Examiner notes in context that setting up a bearer using RRC signaling involves configuring things using an RRC connection message); and
receiving an RRC connection complete message returned by the UE, and transmitting MBS data to the UE (MRB context setup and data transmission using RRC signaling; see paragraph [0079]; the Examiner notes in context that setting up a bearer using RRC signaling involves receiving an RRC completion message); or
configuring an MBS resource and sending the MBS resource to the UE through an RRC connection release message or an RRC reject message after the target cell establishes the MBS session context; and
transmitting MBS data to the UE in the in-active state.
Regarding claim 11, 3GPP discloses a Multimedia Broadcast Service, MBS, data communication method (MBS; see Title), applied to a network side device of a source cell (source gNB; see Fig. 1), comprising:
receiving a UE context request message sent by a target cell for a UE in an in- active state (handover to target triggers UE MBS context sent from source gNB to target gNB; see Fig.1 and associated description; the Examiner notes that the HO comprises messages from target gNB to source gNB, and understands this as encompassing the UE context request, as the result is a UE context being transferred from source to target);
sending MBS session context related information to the target cell (UE MBS context sent from source gNB to target gNB; see Fig.1 and associated description), so that the target cell establishes an MBS session context and performs MBS data communication (MBS session is transferred; see section 2).
3GPP does not explicitly disclose that this is done for a UE in RRC_INACTIVE.
Zhu discloses subject matter relating to MBS mobility. Specifically, Zhu discloses handovers occurring for an MBS session while a device is in RRC_INACTIVE (see paragraphs [0057 – 0065] and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of 3GPP with Zhu by specifying that the context request and exchange can occur for a UE in RRC_INACTIVE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as the context is still available to be moved from gNB to gNB in RRC_INACTIVE and would save the trouble of reestablishing it. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 12, 3GPP and Zhu teaches the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
establishing a common forwarding channel with the target cell and transmitting MBS data on the common forwarding channel, and the target cell sends the MBS data to the UE (source and target gNBs communicate (ie use a common forwarding channel) and MBS data is transmitted from target to UE; see Fig. 1 and associated description; forwarding of MBS data from source to target; see Proposal 7).
Regarding claim 16, 3GPP and Zhu teaches the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
initiating an MBS session context release process to release the common forwarding channel (UE MBS Context release; see Fig. 1 and associated description; the Examiner understands the prior transmission of source gNB as initiating the final context release, and understands in context that this is for the release of the forwarding channel, as it would no longer be necessary)
Regarding claim 17, 3GPP and Zhu teaches the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses a network side device (target gNB; see Fig. 1), comprising:
a memory and a processor (target gNB; see Fig. 1; the Examiner understands a gNB as comprising memory and processor);
wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program (target gNB; see Fig. 1; the Examiner understands a gNB as comprising memory storing a program);
the processor is configured to read the computer program from the memory to perform the MBS data communication method according to claim 1 (target gNB; see Fig. 1; the Examiner understands a gNB as comprising processor reading the program to perform the functions of the device).
Regarding claim 27, 3GPP and Zhu teaches the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses a network side device (target gNB; see Fig. 1), comprising:
a memory and a processor (target gNB; see Fig. 1; the Examiner understands a gNB as comprising memory and processor);
wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program (target gNB; see Fig. 1; the Examiner understands a gNB as comprising memory storing a program);
the processor is configured to read the computer program from the memory to perform the MBS data communication method according to claim 11 (target gNB; see Fig. 1; the Examiner understands a gNB as comprising processor reading the program to perform the functions of the device).
Regarding claim 35, 3GPP and Zhu teaches the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses a computer program medium storing a computer program thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements steps of the method of claim 1 (target gNB; see Fig. 1; the Examiner understands a gNB as comprising a medium storing a program to implement the functions of the device).
Regarding claim 36, 3GPP and Zhu teaches the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses a computer program medium storing a computer program thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements steps of the method of claim 11 (target gNB; see Fig. 1; the Examiner understands a gNB as comprising a medium storing a program to implement the functions of the device).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Byun - US 20230076769 A1 - MBS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN STEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9825. The examiner can normally be reached M - R 08:00 - 16:00; F 08:00 - 12:00.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 5712723139. 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.
/S.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464