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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant Argument: Applicant argued claim 1 on page 2-4 of applicant arguments, however in the amendment of claims filed on 01/01/2026, Claims 1-12 are cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim 13-17, 18, 19 and 29 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.
Regarding claims 13, 18, applicant is claiming “a terminal receiving a third message from a network device, wherein the third message indicates that at least one Multicast/Broadcast Service (MBS) which is in an inactive state transits to an active state, or the third message indicates that at least one MBS which is in an inactive state transits to an active state in a first cell…. And the third network device does not support the at least one MBS”. It is unclear how or why a network device will transmit a message indicating transit to MBS active state when the network device does not support the at least one MBS.
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.
4. 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.
Claim(s) 13, 15, 25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being over “KI#1: New Solution for MBS session (Activate, deactive)” by Huawei, hereafter referred as Huawei in view of Shin (US 20090270026 A1 ).
Regarding claim 13, Huawei teaches A service notification method performed by a third network device, comprising:
receiving a notification message, wherein the notification message indicates that at least one Multicast/Broadcast Service (MBS) which is in an inactive state transit to an active state(“see page 4 section 6.x.2.1 MBS session activate procedure step 8 “when the MB-UPF received an MBS Data packet and related MBS Session 1s in inactivate state, i.e. no DL tunnel info, the MB-UPF notify the MB-SMF of Session activation. Per that indication, the MB-SMF can activate the MBS session.”), or, the notification message indicates that at least one MBS which is in an inactive state transits to a active state in a first cell, wherein the third network device is a network device to which a second cell belongs, and at least part of terminals in a second cell receives the at least one MBS;
Huawei doesn’t teach sending a third message to a terminal, wherein the third message indicates that at least one Multicast/Broadcast Service (MBS) which is in an inactive state transits to an active state, or the third message indicates that at least one MBS which is in an inactive state transits to an active state in a first cell, wherein the third network device does not support the at least one MBS.
Shin (US 20090270026 A1) doesn’t teach sending a third message to a terminal, wherein the third message indicates that at least one Multicast/Broadcast Service (MBS) which is in an inactive state transits to an active state (see para 0042 “the RRC 304 waits for an MBMS service session start message from a network. Also, the RABM 302 transits an MBMS service state from "SERVICE-INACTIVE" to "SERVICE-ACTIVE"; see para 0043 “If MBMS service session start is informed from a network, the RRC 304 establishes an MBMS bearer for receiving an MBMS service through signaling with the PDCP 303 and the RLC/MAC/PHY 305. Here, the RABM 302 transits the MBMS service state to "SESSION-ACTIVE".”) , or the third message indicates that at least one MBS which is in an inactive state transits to an active state in a first cell, wherein the third network device does not support the at least one MBS.
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine sending a third message to a terminal, wherein the third message indicates that at least one Multicast/Broadcast Service (MBS) which is in an inactive state transits to an active state in the system of Huawei. The motivation is to control an MBMS bearer of a mobile terminal to receive an MBMS service. (Shin: see para 0001)
Regarding claim 15, Huawei teaches wherein receiving the notification message further comprises:
receiving a fifth message sent by a third terminal, wherein the fifth message indicates that the at least one MBS which is in the inactive state transits to the active state (page 5 section 6.x.2.1 MBS session activate procedure: step 13 “upon reception of paging request, the UE initiates the service request procedure to change to CM-connected state”); or, the fifth message indicates that the at least one MBS which is in the inactive state transits to the active state in the first cell; wherein the fifth message comprises one or more of following: a cell list supporting at least one MBS, and one or more measurement results of measuring one or more cells in the cell list by the third terminal.
Regarding claim 25, Huawei teaches a terminal, comprising:
a processor, a memory, and a program stored on the memory and executable on the processor, wherein when the program is executed by the processor, the processor implements the steps of the method according to claim 18. page 5 section 6.x.2.1 step 11-13 “If the related UE is in CM-IDLE state, step 11 to step 13 apply. 11-12. As the UE is in CM-IDLE state, the AMF pages the UE)[ it is known in the art that UE has processor and memory for storage]
Regarding claim 28, Huawei teaches a network device comprising a processor, a memory, and a program stored on the memory and executable on the processor, wherein when the program is executed by the processor, steps of the method according to claim 13 are implemented. page 5 section 6.x.2.1 step 11-13 “If the related UE is in CM-IDLE state, step 11 to step 13 apply. 11-12. As the UE is in CM-IDLE state, the AMF pages the UE)[ it is known in the art that AMF has processor and memory for storage]
6. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “KI#1: New Solution for MBS session (Activate, deactive)” by Huawei, hereafter referred as Huawei in view of Shin (US 20090270026 A1 ) and further in view of Kim (US 20050094670 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Huawei doesn’t teach wherein the third message comprises one or more of following: a parameter of cell reselection of a second terminal receiving the at least one MBS;a manner of receiving the at least one MBS;a resource of receiving the at least one MBS;time information of receiving the at least one MBS ;;frequency domain information of receiving the at least one MBS.
Kim teaches a parameter of cell reselection of a second terminal receiving the at least one MBS;
a manner of receiving the at least one MBS;
a resource of receiving the at least one MBS;
time information of receiving the at least one MBS see para 0017 “The information for the announcement includes information of which MBMS services are to be started, information of the time to start the MBMS services, and information of the duration of the MBMS services.”).;
frequency domain information of receiving the at least one MBS.
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the inventio to combine the first message carries a time length of activation of the at least one MBS in the system of Huawei. The motivation is to achieve efficient utilization of transmission resources. (Kim; see para 0033)
7. Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “KI#1: New Solution for MBS session (Activate, deactive)” by Huawei, hereafter referred as Huawei in view of Shin (US 20090270026 A1 ) and further in view of 3GPP TR 23.767 V1.12.0, hereafter referred as 3GPP.
Regarding claim 14, Huawei doesn’t teach es 14. (Original) The method according to claim 13, wherein the third network device or the second cell does not support the at least one MBS, or the at least one MBS is not in a MBS list supported by the third network device or the second cell.
3GPP teaches wherein the third network device or the second cell does not support the at least one MBS, or the at least one MBS is not in a MBS list supported by the third network device or the second cell6.13.2.1 page 102 MBS session deactivation bullet 1 “SMF determines to deactivate the MBS Session there is no data or no UE for the MBS Session. The methods for SMF to determine to deactivate:- Receiving indication from the UPF there is no data receives for the MBS Session.”).
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine third network device or the second cell does not support the at least one MBS in the system of Huawei. The motivation is to efficiently user radio resources (3GPP: section 6.2.2.1”session join”)
Regarding claim 16, Huawei doesn’t teach wherein the method further comprises at least one of following: determining that at least part of the terminals in the second cell is capable of being handed over to the first cell, wherein a state of the at least part of the terminals is a connected state, and the at least part of the terminals expects to receive at least one MBS or is interested in at least one MBS; sending an eighth message to a first terminal in a connected state in the second cell, wherein the eighth message indicates that the at least one MBS which is in the inactive state transits to the active state, or the eighth message indicates that the at least one MBS which is in the inactive state transits to the active state in the first cell;
sending a handover request message or a conditional handover request message to the second network device, wherein the handover request message or the conditional handover request message carries a handover reason; and receiving handover configuration information configured by the second network device;
sending a ninth message to the first terminal, wherein the ninth message comprises one or more of following: handover configuration information; a handover reason; an event for conditional handover configured by the third network device to the first terminal, and a threshold value corresponding to the event;
in a case that the third network device fails to receive a cell list supporting the at least one MBS, sending a sixth message to the first cell or the second network device, wherein the sixth message indicates whether the first cell supports at least one MBS;
in a case that the third network device receives a cell list supporting at least one MBS,
sending a seventh message to a second network device to which the first cell supporting the at least one MBS belongs of a radio access network, wherein the seventh message indicates querying whether the third terminal is capable of being handed over to the first cell;
in a case that the second network device replies that the first cell supports the at least one MBS, handing over the third terminal to the first cell.
3GPP Teaches in a case that the second network device replies that the first cell supports the at least one MBS, handing over the third terminal to the first cell (See page 100 step 4 “UE to T-RAN: Handover Confirm. After the UE has successfully synchronized to the target cell, it sends a Handover Confirm message to the TSteps same as in TS 23.502 [8] clause 4.9.1.3.3. RAN. Handover is by this message considered as successful by the UE.”) .
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine in a case that the second network device replies that the first cell supports the at least one MBS, handing over the third terminal to the first cell in the system of Huawei. The motivation is to efficiently use radio resources (3GPP: section 6.2.2.1”session join”)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAMIT KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-5665. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, NOEL BEHARRY can be reached at 5712705630. 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.
/PAMIT KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2416