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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on 05/02/2025, 01/08/2025 and 08/22/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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: “Multicast service management based on user equipment location information”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 recites, “-- and the session management function --” (line 10). It is suggested to replace it with “-- the session management function --” for more clarity. Claims 11 and 17 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 11 recites, “-- is located outside a service area of the MBS” (second line from the bottom). It is suggested to replace it with “-- is located outside the service area of the MBS” for more clarity. Claim 17 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 11.
Claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are also objected to since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the objected claims, as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baek et al (US Publication No. 2022/0417709 A1)1.
Regarding claim 1, Baek discloses, a data communication method [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶b0068, a communication method] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A)2, comprising:
sending, by a session management function executed by a processor, a first message to an access management function [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, transmitting, by SMF 230 (note that every network device executed by at least one processor), a Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message (i.e., first message) to AMF 220; further see ¶0061, “when a UE 200 requests to join a multicast session, an SMF 230 may directly or indirectly perform event subscription in a PDU session modification procedure to request a notification from an AMF 220”] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A) based on context information of a multicast session corresponding to a multicast and broadcast service (MBS) [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, the Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message includes at least one of MBS service area information, the MBS session ID, or a notification correlation ID); note that the transmitting of Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message is based on MBS service area information or the MBS session ID (i.e., context information of a multicast session corresponding to a MBS)] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A), wherein the first message is for triggering reporting of location information of a first terminal device [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, the Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message is for triggering a notification of location information of a UE, see “in step 2-1, the SMF 230 may directly transmit a Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message (including at least one of MBS service area information, the MBS session ID, or a notification correlation ID) to the AMF 220 to subscribe to event notification, so that when the UE 200 moves out of the MBS service area, a notification may be received”] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A), and the first terminal device belongs to a multicast group corresponding to the MBS [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, the UE 200 belongs to a multicast group corresponding to the MBS] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A);
receiving, by the session management function, the location information of the first terminal device from the access management function [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, receiving, by the SMF 230, a notification when the UE 200 moves out of the MBS service area from the AMF 220] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A); and
in response to (1) the location information indicating a location of the first terminal device [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, in response to the received notification indicating the UE 200 moves out the MBS service area] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A), and the session management function determining, based on the location of the first terminal device, that the first terminal device is located outside a service area of the MBS [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, note that since the SMF 230 receives the notification when the UE 200 moves out of the MBS serve area, it is implied that the SMF 230 determines that the UE 200 is located outside the MBS service area] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A).
Regarding claim 3, Baek discloses, the data communication method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Baek further discloses, wherein the first message is a subscription message [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, the Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message is a subscription message], and the subscription message is for subscribing to the location information of the first terminal device [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, the Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message is for subscribing to the event notification when the UE 200 moves out of the MBS service area; further see “transmit a Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message . . . to the AMF 220 to subscribe to event notification, so that when the UE 200 moves out of the MBS service area, a notification may be received”] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A).
Regarding claim 4, Baek discloses, the data communication method according to claim 3 as set forth above.
Baek further discloses, wherein the subscription message is an event exposure subscription message [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, the Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message is an event exposure subscription message] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A).
Regarding claim 5, Baek discloses, the data communication method according to claim 3 as set forth above.
Baek further discloses, wherein the subscription message carries information about the service area of the MBS [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, the Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message includes at least one of MBS service area information] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A).
Regarding claim 6, Baek discloses, the data communication method according to claim 1 and particularly, “the receiving, by the session management function, the location information of the first terminal device from the access management function, the data communication method” as set forth above.
Baek further discloses, wherein before the receiving, by the session management function, the location information of the first terminal device from the access management function [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0061 and 0068, before the SMF 230 may directly or indirectly perform event subscription in a PDU session modification procedure to request a notification from an AMF 220; further see ¶0068, the SMF 230 may directly transmit a Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message] see e.g., page 13 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A), the data communication method further comprises:
receiving, by the session management function, a second message from the first terminal device, wherein the second message is for requesting to join the multicast session [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0061, UE 200 requests to join a multicast session; see “when a UE 200 requests to join a multicast session, an SMF 230 may directly or indirectly perform event subscription in a PDU session modification procedure to request a notification from an AMF 220”] see e.g., page 13 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A).
Regarding claim 7, Baek discloses, the data communication method according to claim 1 and particularly, “the sending, by the session management function, the first message to the access management function based on the context information of the multicast session corresponding to the MBS” as set forth above.
Baek further discloses, in response to the context information comprising the information about the service area of the MBS [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, based on MBS service area information (i.e., context information) included in the Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message], sending, by the session management function, the first message to the access management function [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, the SMF 230 transmits the Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message to the AMF 220] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A).
Regarding claim 8, Baek discloses, the data communication method according to claim 1 and particularly, “the sending, by the session management function, the first message to the access management function” as set forth above.
Baek further discloses, in response to the first terminal device receiving the data of the MBS through an individual delivery [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0060, when a network recognizes that a UE receiving multicast traffic (or MBS traffic) in the individual delivery method has moved out of a service area, the network may restrict the multicast traffic transmission; further see ¶0061, referring to FIGS. 2A and 2B, a multicast traffic control process may be performed through an associated PDU session used for the individual delivery method] see e.g., page 13 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A), sending the first message to the access management function [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, the SMF 230 may directly transmit a Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message to the AMF 220 to subscribe to event notification] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A).
Regarding claim 9, Baek discloses, the data communication method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Baek further discloses, wherein the location information of the first terminal device is carried in a subscription notification message [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, when the UE 200 moves out of the MBS service area (i.e., location information), a notification may be received”] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A).
Regarding claim 10, Baek discloses, the data communication method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Baek further discloses, receiving, by the access management function, the first message [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, the AMF 220 receives the Namf_EventExposure_subscribe message (i.e., first message) from the SMF 230] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A); and
sending, by the access management function, the location information of the first terminal device to the session management function [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, the AMF 220 transmits a notification to the SMF 230 when the UE 200 moves out of the MBS service area (i.e., location information)] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A).
Regarding claim 11, Baek discloses, a communication apparatus [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, SMF 230], comprising:
a processor [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, SMF 230; note every network device has at least one processor]; and
a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the communication apparatus to [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, SMF 230; note that every network device has at least one memory storing instruction that, when executed by the processor, cause the device to perform action(s)].
Since claim 11 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 11 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, Baek discloses, a communication system, comprising:
a session management function executed by one or more processors [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, SMF 230 (note that every network device executed by at least one processor)] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A); and
an access management function executed by the one or more processors [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, AMF 220 (note that every network device executed by at least one processor)] see e.g., page 15 of Baek’796 et al (KR 2023/0000796 A),
wherein the session management function is configured to [FIG. 2A; its related descriptions; ¶0068, SMF 230].
Since claim 17 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al (US Publication No. 2022/0417709 A1) in view of Hou et al (CN 113163337 A)3.
Regarding claim 2, Baek discloses, the data communication method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Baek does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Hou wherein the first message carries identification information of the first terminal device [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0149, S601: the SMF entity sends event subscription information to the AMF entity, which carries the UE's identifier and the multicast service area identifier].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Baek with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Hou to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Hou into the system of Baek would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to uniquely identify a specific user device without a multicast group, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al (US Publication No. 2023/0379942 A1) [¶0298, see “[i]n order for the MB-SMF to recognize that the UE is moving to EPS, when a UE receiving multicast session service moves to EPS, the MB-SMF can subscribe to an event exposure service to notify the AMF of the movement of the UE (if subscribing to this service, the AMF can inform the MB-SMF of the movement of the UE)”]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm(M-T).
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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Baek claims priority of KR 2023/0000796 A filed on 06/25/2021, thus Baek is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 08/01/2021.
2 Copy of English translation (see attached) to Baek’796 is used for the sake of claim mapping purpose.
3 Copy of English translation (see attached) to Hou is used for the sake of claim mapping purpose.