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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Title Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ADDING TERMINAL DEVICE TO A MULTICAST SERVICE SESSION
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice (Pub. No.: US 20110051646 A1), hereinafter Rice, in view of Arberg et al. (Pub. No.: US 20090245248 A1), hereinafter Arberg.
With respect to claim 1, Rice teaches A method, applied to an access network device (fig. 2, [0022], BTS), the method comprising:
obtaining first information from a first core network device (fig. 2, [0022-0023], BTS obtains information/instructions from first core network device/Service Center), wherein the first information is used to request to add a first terminal device to a multicast service session corresponding to a first multicast service (fig. 2, [0022-0023], the information/instructions is used to add a first terminal device/ mobile device to a multicast service session corresponding to a first multicast service/first live stream of a sporting event); and
adding the first terminal device to a multicast service session corresponding to a second multicast service when a first condition is met (fig. 2, [0022-0023], adding the mobile device to a multicast service session corresponding to a second multicast service/ a live stream of a sporting event when a first condition is met/ the mobile device is authorized for the live stream of a sporting event), wherein the first condition comprises that the first multicast service and the second multicast service are a same multicast service (fig. 2, [0022-0023], first live stream and second live stream are the same live stream of a sporting event).
Rice does not explicitly teach the second multicast service is provided by a second core network device.
However, Arberg teaches the second multicast service is provided by a second core network device (fig. 1B, [0033], the second multicast service is provided by a second core network device/ core network element 125).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arberg, the second multicast service is provided by a second core network device, into the teachings of Rice, in order to provide resilient multicast traffic stream processing (Arberg, [0036]).
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites the method of claim 1, and it is rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice, in view of Arberg, and further in view of Khan (Pub. No.: WO 2016124983 A1), hereinafter Khan.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Rice and Arberg teaches the method of claim 1. Rice teaches sending second information to the first core network device (fig. 1, [0020]), wherein the second information indicates not to establish a first data transmission channel with the first core network device, and the first data transmission channel is used to transmit service data of the first multicast service (fig. 1, [0018]).
Although Rice teaches the second information as set forth above. The combination of Rice and Arberg does not explicitly teach indicates not to establish a first data transmission channel with the first core network device.
However, Khan teaches indicates not to establish a first data transmission channel with the first core network device (figures 4-5; figures 4-5 show MBMS share by two operators (A & B). Two operators provide the same content to the users by sharing to RAN but not core network. See [0025-0028, 0033-0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Khan, indicates not to establish a first data transmission channel with the first core network device, into the teachings of Rice and Arberg, in order to greatly reduce overall traffic load (Khan, [0003]).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Rice and Arberg teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Rice and Arberg does not explicitly teach sending a first user identifier to the first terminal device, wherein the first user identifier is used to scramble first scheduling information, and the first scheduling information is used to schedule service data of the second multicast service, wherein the first user identifier is the same as a second user identifier, the second user identifier is a user identifier sent to a second terminal device, and the second terminal device belongs to the second core network device.
However, Khan teaches sending a first user identifier to the first terminal device, wherein the first user identifier is used to scramble first scheduling information, and the first scheduling information is used to schedule service data of the second multicast service, wherein the first user identifier is the same as a second user identifier, the second user identifier is a user identifier sent to a second terminal device, and the second terminal device belongs to the second core network device (figures 4-5; See [0025-0028, 0033-0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Khan, sending a first user identifier to the first terminal device, wherein the first user identifier is used to scramble first scheduling information, and the first scheduling information is used to schedule service data of the second multicast service, wherein the first user identifier is the same as a second user identifier, the second user identifier is a user identifier sent to a second terminal device, and the second terminal device belongs to the second core network device, into the teachings of Rice and Arberg, in order to greatly reduce overall traffic load (Khan, [0003]).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Rice and Arberg teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Rice and Arberg does not explicitly teach sending first configuration information to the first terminal device, wherein the first configuration information comprises configuration information of a second multicast radio bearer, the second multicast radio bearer is used to transmit service data of the second multicast service to a second terminal device, and the second multicast radio bearer is further used to transmit the service data of the second multicast service to the first terminal device.
However, Khan teaches sending first configuration information to the first terminal device, wherein the first configuration information comprises configuration information of a second multicast radio bearer, the second multicast radio bearer is used to transmit service data of the second multicast service to a second terminal device, and the second multicast radio bearer is further used to transmit the service data of the second multicast service to the first terminal device (figures 4-5; See [0025-0028, 0033-0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Khan, sending first configuration information to the first terminal device, wherein the first configuration information comprises configuration information of a second multicast radio bearer, the second multicast radio bearer is used to transmit service data of the second multicast service to a second terminal device, and the second multicast radio bearer is further used to transmit the service data of the second multicast service to the first terminal device, into the teachings of Rice and Arberg, in order to greatly reduce overall traffic load (Khan, [0003]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice, in view of Arberg, and further in view of VAN LIESHOUT et al. (Pub. No.: US 20180103403 A1), hereinafter VAN LIESHOUT.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Rice and Arberg teaches the method of claim 1. Rice teaches the first data transmission channel is used to transmit service data of the first multicast service ([0018], the communications link 26 is used to transmit service data of the first multicast service).
The combination of Rice and Arberg does not explicitly teach sending third information to the first core network device, wherein the third information indicates that a first data transmission channel established with the first core network device is in an inactive state.
However, VAN LIESHOUT teaches sending third information to the first core network device, wherein the third information indicates that a first data transmission channel established with the first core network device is in an inactive state ([0087], indicating the connection with the core network is in an inactive state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of VAN LIESHOUT, sending third information to the first core network device, wherein the third information indicates that a first data transmission channel established with the first core network device is in an inactive state, into the teachings of Rice and Arberg, in order to offload traffic from LTE to WLAN and WLAN to LTE (VAN LIESHOUT, [0036]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice, in view of Arberg, and further in view of XIONG (Pub. No.: US 20220217508 A1), hereinafter XIONG.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Rice and Arberg teaches the method of claim 1. Rice teaches wherein the first information comprises a first identifier corresponding to the first multicast service ([0022-0023], provides content and instructions to the BTS 12 to be forwarded to the mobile device); and that the first condition comprises that the first multicast service and the second multicast service are the same multicast service (fig. 2, [0022-0023], first live stream and second live stream are the same live stream of a sporting event).
The combination of Rice and Arberg does not explicitly teach the first identifier matches a second identifier corresponding to the second multicast service..
However, XIONG teaches the first identifier matches a second identifier corresponding to the second multicast service ([0013], a first identifier and a second identifier corresponding to a multicast service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of XIONG, the first identifier matches a second identifier corresponding to the second multicast service., into the teachings of Rice and Arberg, in order to combine the PCC with the transmission of multicast/broadcast service data in a fifth-generation wireless communication system (XIONG, [0007]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice, in view of Arberg, in view of XIONG, and further in view of Khan.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Rice, Arberg, and XIONG teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Rice, Arberg, and XIONG does not explicitly teach wherein the first identifier is a first multicast service identifier corresponding to the first multicast service in the first core network device; the first identifier is a first multicast service session identifier corresponding to the first multicast service in the first core network device; the first identifier is an identifier corresponding to the first multicast service in a service server or another identifier allocated by a service server to the first multicast service.
However, Khan teaches wherein the first identifier is a first multicast service identifier corresponding to the first multicast service in the first core network device; the first identifier is a first multicast service session identifier corresponding to the first multicast service in the first core network device (figures 4-5; See [0025-0028, 0033-0038]); the first identifier is an identifier corresponding to the first multicast service in a service server or another identifier allocated by a service server to the first multicast service (figures 4-5; See [0025-0028, 0033-0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Khan, wherein the first identifier is a first multicast service identifier corresponding to the first multicast service in the first core network device; the first identifier is a first multicast service session identifier corresponding to the first multicast service in the first core network device; the first identifier is an identifier corresponding to the first multicast service in a service server or another identifier allocated by a service server to the first multicast service, into the teachings of Rice, Arberg, and XIONG, in order to greatly reduce overall traffic load (Khan, [0003]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice, in view of Arberg, in view of Khan, and further in view VAN LIESHOUT.
With respect to claim 15, Rice teaches A method, applied to a first core network device (fig. 2, [0022-0023], first core network device/Service Center), the method comprising:
sending first information to an access network device, wherein the first information is used to request to add a first terminal device to a multicast service session corresponding to a first multicast service (fig. 2, [0022-0023], BTS obtains information/instructions from first core network device/Service Center, the information/instructions is used to add a first terminal device/ mobile device to a multicast service session corresponding to a first multicast service/first live stream of a sporting event); and
receiving second information or third information from the access network device when the first terminal device joins a multicast service session corresponding to a second multicast service ([0020], the Service Center 16 receiving an indication that the device 24 has migrated from the cellular site of BTS 12 to the cellular site of BTS 14), wherein the first multicast service and the second multicast service are a same multicast service ([0022-0023], first live stream and second live stream are the same live stream of a sporting event);
the first data transmission channel is used to transmit service data of the first multicast service ([0018], channel have been established for that cellular site for providing the requested content);
and the first data transmission channel is used to transmit the service data of the first multicast service ([0018], the communications link 26 is used to transmit service data of the first multicast service).
Rice does not explicitly teach the second multicast service is provided by a second core network device.
However, Arberg teaches the second multicast service is provided by a second core network device (fig. 1B, [0033], the second multicast service is provided by a second core network device/ core network element 125).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arberg, the second multicast service is provided by a second core network device, into the teachings of Rice, in order to provide resilient multicast traffic stream processing (Arberg, [0036]).
Although Rice teaches the second information as set forth above. The combination of Rice and Arberg does not explicitly teach indicates not to establish a first data transmission channel with the first core network device.
However, Khan teaches indicates not to establish a first data transmission channel with the first core network device (figures 4-5; figures 4-5 show MBMS share by two operators (A & B). Two operators provide the same content to the users by sharing to RAN but not core network. See [0025-0028, 0033-0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Khan, indicates not to establish a first data transmission channel with the first core network device, into the teachings of Rice and Arberg, in order to greatly reduce overall traffic load (Khan, [0003]).
The combination of Rice, Arberg, and Khan does not explicitly teach the third information indicates that the first data transmission channel established with the first core network device is in an inactive state.
However, VAN LIESHOUT teaches the third information indicates that the first data transmission channel established with the first core network device is in an inactive state ([0087], indicating the connection with the core network is in an inactive state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of VAN LIESHOUT, the third information indicates that the first data transmission channel established with the first core network device is in an inactive state, into the teachings of Rice, Arberg, and Khan, in order to offload traffic from LTE to WLAN and WLAN to LTE (VAN LIESHOUT, [0036]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 and 16-19 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub. No.: US 20220408162 A1; “Jia”, ([0007])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIET TANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7193. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, IAN MOORE can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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.
/KIET TANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469