DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 6/8/2026.
Claims 52,53,55-75, and 77-96 are pending.
Claims 69-73, and 91-96 are rejected.
Claims 52,53,55-68,74,75, and 77-90 are allowed.
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 Amendments
This communication is in response to Applicant’s reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111 on 6/8/2026. Claims 52,55-62,64,65,67-69,71-74,77-84,86,87,89-91, and 93-96 were amended, claims 54 and 76 were canceled, and claims 52,53,55-75, and 77-96 remain pending.
Amendment to the specification has been entered, reviewed and found to obviated previously raised objection. Objection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 96 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US Pub. 2024/0172175)(L1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 96, L1 teaches a method for managing a Multicast Broadcast Service (MBS) broadcast context in one or more Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) nodes [refer Fig. 7; 172] involved in an MBS session [paragraph 0150], the method comprising:
at a network function node (i.e. AF)[refer Fig. 7; 188], sending a request for handling the MBS session (i.e. session activation request)[refer Fig. 7; 211b] to a Multicast and Broadcast-Session Management Function (MB-SMF) node directly [paragraph 0150], the network function node is one of an Application Function (AF) node [refer Fig. 7; 188],
the request for handling the MBS session is: sent in response to creation of the MBS session [refer Fig. 7; 211b] and used for obtaining a Temporary Mobile Group Identifier (TMGI) only [paragraph 0115].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 69,70,72,91,92 and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Pub. 2024/0155436)(L2 hereafter) in view of Han et al. (US Pub. 2022/0312309)(H1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 69 and 91, L2 teaches a network node for a Session Management Function (SMF)[refer Fig. 2; SMF/UPF], the network node comprising:
at least one processor [refer Fig. 9; 900]; and a memory [refer Fig. 9; 910] containing program code [refer Fig. 9; 912] executable by the at least one processor [paragraph 0170], whereby execution of the program code by the at least one processor causes the network node to implement an SMF node [paragraph 0168] and to:
send to a Multicast and Broadcast-Session Management Function (MB-SMF) node for an MBS session (i.e. Nmbsmf_MBSSession_Create request) at the MB-SMF node [paragraph 0085]; and
receive from the MB-SMF node a notification (the SMF interacts with the MB-SMF to retrieve multicast QoS flow information of the MBS session [paragraph 0085][refer Fig. 2; 206], the SMF then provides an UpdateSMContext response to the AMF with the MB-SMF ID and QoS flow information [paragraph 0086]).
However, L2 fails to disclose send to a Multicast and Broadcast-Session Management Function (MB-SMF) node subscription to an event about a context status for an MBS session, and receive from the MB-SMF node a notification of the event about the context status.
H1 discloses the use of a context status subscribe message [paragraph 0031], in which an AMF can send information to an SMF that includes a PDU session mobility management context status subscribe message [paragraph 0068], and an SMF can send a PDU session management context status notify message to the AMF accordingly [paragraph 0069].
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 teachings of L2 to incorporate the use of explicit context status subscribe messaging to provide relevant information on contexts as taught by H1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of reporting user plane function (UPF) information on a RAN side of a new system [refer H1; paragraph 0005].
Regarding claims 70 and 92, L2 teaches the network node to send, to the MB-SMF, User Plane Function (UPF) UP information [paragraph 0062][paragraph 0075].
Regarding claims 72 and 94, L2 teaches the subscription to context status change includes an indication that current context status for the MBS session shall be reported immediately by the MB-SMF node [paragraph 0125].
Claims 71,73,93 and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L2 in view of H1, as applied to claims 69 and 91, in further view of D1.
Regarding claims 71 and 93, L2 fails to disclose the network node to send, to the MB-SMF, unsubscription to the context status change.
D1 discloses that an AMF can update a MB session context and can send a subscribe or unsubscribe message accordingly if the AMF wants to receive or not receive notification services of these functions [paragraph 0134].
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 teachings of L2 for allowing for the updating of an MBS session context [refer L2; paragraph 0083] to incorporate the updating of a MB session context and the sending of a respective subscribe or unsubscribe message from an AMF as taught by D1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of providing control plane signaling for releasing or modifying MB sessions [refer D1; paragraph 0004].
Regarding claims 73 and 95, L2 fails to disclose the network node to send, to the MB-SMF node, Downlink (DL) tunnel information for unicast in an update context service operation, subscription to context status change for an MBS session at the MB-SMF node is implicitly made by sending the DL tunnel information.
D1 discloses that a MB session modification in a user plane function (UPF) can involve the sending of a message that includes new QoS rules, tunnel information, such as downlink tunnel identifiers (DL TEID), to connect the UPF and RAN nodes [paragraph 0094][paragraph 0204].
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 teachings of L2 for allowing for the updating of an MBS session context [refer L2; paragraph 0083] to incorporate the updating of a MB session context and the sending of a respective subscribe or unsubscribe message from an AMF as taught by D1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of providing control plane signaling for releasing or modifying MB sessions [refer D1; paragraph 0004].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 52,53,55-68,74,75, and 77-90 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, alone in combination, fails to disclose at a Multicast and Broadcast-Session Management Function (MB-SMF) node, generating a request for managing MBS broadcast session contexts at one or more Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) nodes involved in an MBS session; sending the request from the MB-SMF node to the one or more AMF nodes; at the MB-SMF node, receiving, from an AMF node or from a Session Management Function (SMF) node, subscription to notification of an event about a context status for the MBS session at the MB-SMF node; and at the MB-SMF node, notifying the AMF node or the SMF node of the event about a context status for the MBS session, as noted in claims 52 and 74, and
at an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) node involved in an MBS session, receiving from a Multicast and Broadcast-Session Management Function (MB-SMF) node a request for managing MBS broadcast session contexts at the AMF node, the request for managing MBS session contexts is for one of: context creation, context update, context deletion or context status notification; sending from the AMF node a request for managing an MBS session resource to one or more Radio Access Networks (RANs), at the AMF node, receiving from the one or more RANs one or more responses on a status for the MBS session resource, and at the AMF node, sending to the MB-SMF a response on the status for the MBS broadcast session contexts based on the one or more responses on the status for the MBS session resource, as noted in claims 62 and 84.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 18-23 and 25-31, filed 6/8/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 52,62,74, and 84 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 52,53,55-68,74,75, and 77-90 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 31-34, filed 6/8/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 69 and 91 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Han et al. (US Pub. 2022/0312309) as noted in the above rejection.
Applicant's arguments on page 23 filed 6/8/2026, with regards to the rejection of claim 96 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 96, applicant argues that the applied reference does not teach the claim limitations, namely, “a network function node, such as AF,NEF, or MBSF, sends a request for handling the MBS session to an MB-SMF directly or indirectly, and that the request is one of the recited creation, update or release requests with corresponding uses set forth in the claim.”
In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the request is one of the recited creation, update or release requests with corresponding uses) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, as required by MPEP 2111, the request for handling the MBS session for creation can be seen with regards to the teachings of L1 since the MBS session Activation Request, as shown in Fig. 7; 211b, is explicitly a request to a MB-SMF to active an MBS session [refer L1; paragraph 0140], which can be seen as a creation of one.
Regarding claim 96, applicant argues that the applied reference does not teach the claim limitations, namely, “obtaining a TMGI only.”
In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as required by MPEP 2111, the limitation of the request for handling the MBS session is sent in response to the creation of the MBS session and for obtaining a TMGI only can be seen as when an AF can provide information about the multicast session and/or request the allocation of a TMGI, the AF may providing configuration in several steps, e.g., to first request TMGIs and then provide full information about the multicast session and allow it to be established [refer L1; paragraph 0115]. This can be viewed as the claimed limitation because the TMGI is provided as part of the request process as claimed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R.C.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights