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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 11/19/25 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are pending.
Claims 2, 8, and 15 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the independent claims, Applicant argues Ericsson does not disclose the amended limitation “the reference location information including one or more of a current location cell of the terminal or a location of the terminal in a target access network device of the terminal” [Remarks pg. 8, 9]. Examiner respectively disagrees. As shown in the now canceled claim 8 (and included in the amended independent claims), Ericsson discloses the limitation. Consequently, the claims remain rejected.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ericsson (“KI#6, New Solution: Support Local MBS Service”, SA WG2 Meeting #139E S2-2003703, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Ericsson discloses a communication method for a multicast/broadcast service (Local multicast and broadcast communication services [pg. 1 “Introduction”]), comprising:
obtaining, by a network device, reference location information of a terminal, the reference location information representing a reference location of the terminal (AMF (i.e., network device) checks whether the UE is located in the area of the local service [pg. 4 “Steps 17-18”, fig. 6.X.2-1, pg. 4 sec. 6.X.3]), the reference location information including one or more of a current location cell of the terminal or a location of the terminal in a target access network device of the terminal (AMF (i.e., network device) checks whether the UE is located in the area of the local service [pg. 4 “Steps 17-18”, fig. 6.X.2-1, pg. 4 sec. 6.X.3]); and
triggering, by the network device when the reference location of the terminal is inside a service area of a first multicast/broadcast service, the target access network device of the terminal to allocate a transmission resource to the terminal, the transmission resource being used for transmitting data of the first multicast/broadcast service (AMF informs NG-RAN (i.e., triggers target access network device) of newly joined UE, where the NG-RAN sets up the MB Session Resource (i.e., allocates Tx resource) [pg. 4 “Steps 17-18”, fig. 6.X.2-1 no. 9-16, pg. 4 sec. 6.X.3]).
Regarding claim 14, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Ericsson further discloses a communication apparatus for a multicast/broadcast service [fig. 6.X.2-1 “AMF”], comprising: a memory storing instructions [fig. 6.X.2-1 “AMF” (inherent)]; and at least one processor [fig. 6.X.2-1 “AMF” (inherent)].
Regarding claim 4, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses:
wherein the network device comprises a session management function network element or a source access network device of the terminal [fig. 6.X.2-1 “MB-SMF”, “NG-RAN”].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 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 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson as applied to claims 1 and 14 respectively, and further in view of Zhang (US 20150373638 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Ericsson discloses the TMGI service ID [fig. 6.X.2-1] and as discussed above, Ericsson does not explicitly disclose wherein the location information is an identifier of a target cell of the terminal and/or an identifier of the target access network device. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Zhang.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses:
wherein the location information is an identifier of a target cell of the terminal and/or an identifier of the target access network device [par. 0217].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ericsson with Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of maintaining continuity of providing MBMS service continuity [Zhang par. 0002].
Claims 5-7, 9-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson in view of Jung (US 20140112236 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ericsson discloses a communication method for a multicast/broadcast service (Local multicast and broadcast communication services [pg. 1 “Introduction”]), comprising:
obtaining, by a network device, reference location information of a terminal, the reference location information representing a reference location of the terminal (AMF (i.e., network device) checks whether the UE is located in the area of the local service [pg. 4 “Steps 17-18”, fig. 6.X.2-1, pg. 4 sec. 6.X.3]), the reference location information including one or more of a current location cell of the terminal or a location of the terminal in a target access network device of the terminal (AMF (i.e., network device) checks whether the UE is located in the area of the local service [pg. 4 “Steps 17-18”, fig. 6.X.2-1, pg. 4 sec. 6.X.3]); and
the first transmission resource being used for transmitting data of the first multicast/broadcast service (AMF informs NG-RAN (i.e., triggers target access network device) of newly joined UE, where the NG-RAN sets up the MB Session Resource (i.e., allocates Tx resource) [pg. 4 “Steps 17-18”, fig. 6.X.2-1 no. 9-16, pg. 4 sec. 6.X.3]).
Although Ericsson discloses rejecting a UE that is outside of the service area [pg. 4 “Steps 17-18”, fig. 6.X.2-1, pg. 4 sec. 6.X.3] and as discussed above, Ericsson does not explicitly disclose initiating, by the network device when the reference location of the terminal is outside a service area of a first multicast/broadcast service, release of a first transmission resource of the terminal. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Jung.
In the same field of endeavor, Jung discloses:
initiating, by the network device when the reference location of the terminal is outside a service area of a first multicast/broadcast service, release of a first transmission resource of the terminal [par. 0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ericsson with Jung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of maintaining continuity of an MBMS service [Jung par. 0003].
Regarding claim 17, it is substantially similar to claim 5, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Ericsson further discloses a communication apparatus for a multicast/broadcast service [fig. 6.X.2-1 “AMF”], comprising: a memory storing instructions [fig. 6.X.2-1 “AMF” (inherent)]; and at least one processor [fig. 6.X.2-1 “AMF” (inherent)].
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Ericsson and Jung disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses:
wherein the first transmission resource comprises a resource used for the terminal transmitting the data of the first multicast/broadcast service through the target access network device of the terminal [fig. 6.X.2-1].
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Ericsson and Jung disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses wherein the method further comprises:
determining, by the network device based on the reference location information, that the terminal is outside the service area of the first multicast/broadcast service [pg. 4 “Steps 17-18”, fig. 6.X.2-1, pg. 4 sec. 6.X.3].
Regarding claim 9, Ericsson and Jung disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses wherein the network device is a session management function network element [fig. 6.X.2-1 “MB-SMF”, “NG-RAN”], and the obtaining, by the network device, reference location information of the terminal comprises:
receiving, by the session management function network element, a first message comprising the reference location information [pg. 4 “Steps 17-18”, fig. 6.X.2-1 no. 1-16, pg. 4 sec. 6.X.3].
Regarding claim 10, Ericsson and Jung disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses:
wherein the first message is a protocol data unit (PDU) session context update request or a location information provision (Location info provision [pg. 4 “Steps 17-18”, fig. 6.X.2-1 no. 1-16, pg. 4 sec. 6.X.3]).
Regarding claim 11, Ericsson and Jung disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses wherein the method further comprises:
subscribing, by the session management function network element, to the reference location information of the terminal from an access and mobility management network element [fig. 6.X.2-1 no. 5-11]; and
the receiving, by the session management function network element, the first message comprises:
receiving, by the session management function network element, the reference location information of the terminal from the access and mobility management network element [fig. 6.X.2-1 no. 6-16].
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Ericsson and Jung disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson and Jung further disclose:
wherein the network device is a session management function network element [Ericsson fig. 6.X.2-1 “MB-SMF”, “NG-RAN”], and
the initiating, by the network device, the release [Jung, as discussed above] of the first transmission resource comprises one or both of:
notifying, by the session management function network element, a user plane function network element (UPF) [Ericsson fig. 6.X.1-1 MB-SMF to MB-UPF] to release the first transmission resource [Jung, as discussed above]; or
notifying, by the session management function network element [Ericsson, as discussed above], the target access network device of the terminal to release the first transmission resource [Jung par. 0006].
Regarding claim 13, Ericsson and Jung disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson and Jung further disclose wherein the notifying, by the session management function network element, the UPF to release the first transmission resource comprises:
sending, by the session management function network element, an N4 session modification request or a packet forwarding control protocol (PFCP) session modification request to the UPF (Ericsson N4 [fig. 6.X.1-1 “N4”]) to notify the UPF to release the first transmission resource [Jung, as discussed above].
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 Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465