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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a computer-readable storage medium (claim 8) and a computer program product (claim 9) that encompass transitory forms. Examiner suggests amending claims 8 and 9 to specifically recite ‘non-transitory’.
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 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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson (“SMF Removing Joined UEs from MBS Session”, SA WG2 Meeting #145E S2-2103958, IDS Reference) in view of Godin et al. (US 2024/0073649) in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0059003).
Regarding claim 1, Ericsson discloses a method performed by a session management function (SMF), comprising:
receiving a multicast session release request comprising an identifier of a multicast/broadcast service (MBS) session from a multicast/broadcast session management function (MB-SMF) (Page 1, step 1 of figure, Multicast Session Release (MBS Session ID) received by SMF from MB-SMF); and
checking at least one joined user equipment (UE) in the MBS session (Page 1, 1. The SMF receives the Multicast Session release request form the MB-SMF with MBS Session ID. The SMF checks joined UEs).
Ericsson does not disclose marking the one or more UEs without activated UP as to be informed of a release of the MBS session. However, Godin et al. disclose that a SMF determines/identifies a list (i.e. marking) of idle/deactivated UEs that are subscribed to a MBS session (Godin et al., Paragraph 114). According to paragraphs 111-112, Godin et al. use this list of UE identities in order to reduce, limit and/or minimize signaling overhead when notifying UEs of changes MBS session state changes (As is well known in the art and indicated in Ericsson, MBS session state changes include MBS session release).
Therefore, 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 the cited disclosure from Godin et al. in order to reduce, limit and/or minimize signaling overhead when notifying UEs of changes MBS session state changes.
Ericsson in view of Godin et al. does not disclose avoiding triggering message to an Access and Mobility management Function, AMF, for one or more UEs without activated UP. However, Kim et al. disclose operations in which a SMF is informed of UE state (e.g., RRC inactive/idle, RRC connected) and disables/enables deactivation of an existing PDU session (Kim et al., Figure 12 and paragraphs 163-171). According to paragraph 165, the SMS is informed that a UE is in the RRC inactive/idle state, which represents that PDU session release cannot be immediately performed. According to paragraph 167, the SMF disables deactivation of the PDU session in response to the UE being in the RRC inactive/idle state. This ‘disabling’ avoids triggering message to the AMF for the one or more UEs without activated UP.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ericsson in view of Godin et al. with the cited disclosure from Kim et al. in order to reduce UE paging that is less necessary only for PDU session deactivation (Kim et al., Paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. disclose determining a UE of the one or more UEs is in connected state (Figure 12 and paragraphs 168-169, SMF receives notification that the UE is in the RRC connected state).
Regarding claim 3, Godin et al. and Kim et al. disclose wherein determining the UE of the one or more UEs is in connected state comprises determining the user plane for a protocol data unit (PDU) session associated to the MBS session of the UE is activated (Kim et al., Figure 12 and paragraphs 168-169, SMF receives notification that the UE is in the RRC connected state; Paragraph 117, user plane activation for a PDU session/user plane connection for the PDU session; Godin et al., Paragraphs 123-124, PDU session associated with MDS session of activated and connected UE device).
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. disclose wherein determining the user plane for the PDU session associated to the MBS session of the UE is activated comprises determining the user plane for the PDU session associated to the MBS session of the UE is activated when the UE triggers a service request (Paragraph 143, the UE transmits a service request message to the AMF for activation. Refer to section 4.2.3.2 (UE triggered service request) of TS 23.502v15.1.0 for this operation (including subsequent operations) or a network entity triggers a service request with the UE (Figure 12 and paragraphs 168-171, NG-RAN transmits notification to AMF indicating that the UE is in RRC connected state. AMF transmits notification to SMF indicating that the UE is in the RRC connected state for allowing the SMF to enable deactivation of the existing PDU session).
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. disclose initiating a PDU session modification command informing the at least one joined UE of a release of the MBS session (Paragraph 165, UE in RRC inactive state and SMF cannot immediately perform PDU session release and disabling CN-initiated selective deactivation of UP connection of existing PDU session; Figure 12 and paragraph 171, In step S1206, the SMF enables CN-initiated selective deactivation of UP connection of an existing PDU session after being notified that the UE is in RRC connected state, the CN-initiated selective deactivation being the release of the UE from the PDU session).
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 10-12, the functional limitations are rejected for similar reasons set forth in rejecting claims 1-5 above. The prior art additionally discloses a session management function (SMF) (Ericsson, Page 1, SMF; Godin et al., Figures 1 and 5, SMF 220; Figure 4 and paragraphs 102-103, core network device 4000 as SMF 220; Kim et al., Figure 12, SMF), comprising: a processor (Ericsson, processor of SMF is inherent; Godin et al., Figure 4, processor 4100; Kim et al., Figure 14, either of devices 9010 or 9020 comprising processor 9011 or 9021); and a memory coupled to the processor, said memory containing instructions executable by said processor (Ericsson, memory coupled to processor and storing instructions executed by the processor of SMF is inherent; Godin et al., Figure 4 and paragraphs 103-105, non-transitory memory 4300 storing program code and executed by processor 4100; Kim et al., Figure 14 and paragraphs 189-192, either of devices 9010 or 9020 comprising memory 9012 or 9022 connected to respective processor and storing information/commands executed by the respective processor), whereby said SMF is operative to perform the functional limitations (See rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the method according to claim 1 (Ericsson, memory coupled to processor and storing instructions executed by the processor of SMF is inherent; Godin et al., Figure 4 and paragraphs 103-105, non-transitory memory 4300 storing program code and executed by processor 4100; Kim et al., Figure 14 and paragraphs 189-192, either of devices 9010 or 9020 comprising memory 9012 or 9022 connected to respective processor and storing information/commands executed by the respective processor; See rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses a computer program product comprising instructions which when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the method according to claim 1 (Ericsson, memory coupled to processor and storing instructions executed by the processor of SMF is inherent; Godin et al., Figure 4 and paragraphs 103-105, non-transitory memory 4300 storing program code and executed by processor 4100; Kim et al., Figure 14 and paragraphs 189-192, either of devices 9010 or 9020 comprising memory 9012 or 9022 connected to respective processor and storing information/commands executed by the respective processor; See rejection of claim 1 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OTIS L THOMPSON, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Chirag G. Shah can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/OTIS L THOMPSON, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
January 7, 2026