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 statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/04/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Specification and Claims, Applicant’s arguments filed 06/02/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objections to Specification and Claims have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 06/02/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are not applied to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
1, 3-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al (US Publication No. 2022/0417709 A1) in view of Belling et al (US Publication No. 2023/0036231 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).
Although Baek discloses, “receiving, by the session management function, the location information of the first terminal device from the access management function” as set forth above, Baek does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), receiving, by the session management function, a third message from a multicast and broadcast session management function, wherein the third message is for updating a service area of the MBS.
However, Belling discloses, receiving, by the session management function, a third message from a multicast and broadcast session management function, wherein the third message is for updating a service area of the MBS [¶0098, MB-SMF is configured to inform each SMF having registered for notifications concerning the multicast session about the changed service area; note that each SMF is informed of the changed service area of MBS from the MB-SMF] see e.g., page 15 of US Provisional App. No. 63226919.
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 Belling 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 Belling into the system of Baek would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling MBS resources to be delivered where needed - improving spectrum efficiency and ensuring service continuity for mobile users, 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 3, Baek in view of Belling 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 in view of Belling 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 in view of Belling 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 in view of Belling 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 in view of Belling 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 in view of Belling 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 in view of Belling 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 in view of Belling 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.
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 Belling et al (US Publication No. 2023/0036231 A1) and further in view of Hou et al (CN 113163337 A)3.
Regarding claim 2, Baek in view of Belling discloses, the data communication method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Baek in view of Belling 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 in view of Belling 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 in view of Belling 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
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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.f 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 Belling claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63226919 filed on 07/29/2021, thus Belling is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 08/10/2021.
3 Copy of English translation (see attached) to Hou is used for the sake of claim mapping purpose.
Prosecution Insights