DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
2. The response filed on May 07, 2026 has been entered and made of record.
3. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16-17 and 19 have been amended.
4. Claims 2, 8, 15 and 18 have been cancelled.
5. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, 16-17 and 19-21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
6. The applicant's arguments filed on May 07, 2026 regarding claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, 16-17 and 19-21 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The rejection has been revised and set forth below according to the amended claims. A response is considered necessary for applicant’s arguments/remarks since the cited references, 3GPP’757 in combination with 3GPP’533 and newly cited prior art-Ren (US 2021/0314840 A1) will continue to be used to meet amended limitations.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 14 and 17 applicant argued that 3GPP’757 does not disclose the amended features of the claim i.e. “the first access node receiving a confirmation message from the core network acknowledging the switch to the unicast tunnel, wherein the confirmation message comprises an acknowledgement indicator indicating the switch has completed successfully” (Applicant, page 7-9, Remarks Made in an Amendment dated May 07, 2026).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
As a support of evidence, 3GPP’757 discloses:
“…source gNB sends a Unicast Delivery Request to the SMF (using N procedure and NSmf PDU session UpdateSMContext Request). If unicast QoS flows corresponding to the multicast QoS flows are not yet established, the source NG RAN may indicate to the SMF a downlink tunnel information for the individual MBS traffic delivery method which the SMF can use to configure the user plane and data forwarding for individual MBS traffic delivery method (unicast). The SMF decides whether to activate the unicast delivery (as assumed in the subsequent steps)” (Fig. 6.27.2.5-1, Step 1, Step 2, Step 3-4, page 170).
“Step 10.The SMF initiates the PDU session modification procedure to configure the associated unicast QoS flows for multicast data in the source gNB and in the UE.
-Step 11.The source gNB sends the NAS PDU session Modification command to the UE” (Fig. 6.27.2.5-1, page 171).
3GPP’533 further discloses:
“…Option 1, Establishing individual tunnel before the handover procedure” (page 1-2).
“…Option 2, Establishing individual tunnel during the handover procedure” (page 1-2).
Accordingly, the source RAN sends a unicast delivery request to the SMF (5GC) to establish individual tunnel for the UE. The SMF (5GC) switches the tunnel from the shared tunnel to individual tunnel for the UE. The source RAN initiates the handover procedure after receiving the confirmation message indicating that the tunnel mode switch has completed successfully. Otherwise, the source RAN could not initiate the handover procedure without knowing that individual tunnel for the UE is established. Therefore, 3GPP’757 in combination with 3GPP’533 disclose that the source RAN receives a confirmation message from the core network acknowledging the switch to the unicast tunnel.
Additionally, newly cited prior art-Ren (US 2021/0314840 A1) discloses:
“This step includes that the UTRAN determines whether the SGSN device successfully obtains mobility context information of the user in the UTRAN, and the step corresponds to 5 and 6 in FIG. 3. The SGSN device transmits a handover request message to the UTRAN, and the request message includes the EPS bearer ID for network handover and corresponding quality of service (QoS) information. The UTRAN determines, according to the EPS bearer ID and the corresponding QoS information, whether mobility context information of the user in the UTRAN has been successfully obtained. If yes, a handover request acknowledgement message is returned to the SGSN device, and in this case, the network side has been switched to the UTRAN successfully. Otherwise, it means that the SGSN device fails to obtain mobility context information of the user in the UTRAN” (Fig.2, paragraph [0094]).
“In S26, the SGSN device transmits the EPS bearer ID for network handover, an IP address and tunnel endpoint identifier (TEID) information of the SGSN device to the AMF device according to the mobility context information of the user in the UTRAN” (Fig.2, paragraph [0095]).
“In S27, the AMF device transmits, according to the EPS bearer ID, the IP address and the TEID information of the SGSN device, core network tunnel information and QoS flow information to be migrated to the UE via the NG-RAN, so that the UE initiates a route update according to the core network tunnel information and the QoS flow information to be migrated” (Fig.2, paragraph [0097]).
“This step may be referred to 8 to 10 in FIG. 3. In 8 of FIG. 3, the AMF device transmits a handover command to the NG-RAN, and the handover command carries the core network tunnel information and the QoS flow information to be migrated” (paragraph [0098]).
Accordingly, the source RAN receives a confirmation from the core network (AMF) acknowledging the switch to the unicast tunnel, wherein the confirmation message comprises the IP address and the TEID information of the SGSN device (an acknowledgement indicator indicating the switch has completed successfully).
Clearly, the combination of cited references Ran, 3GPP’757 and 3GPP’533 teaches amended claim feature “the first access node receiving a confirmation message from the core network acknowledging the switch to the unicast tunnel, wherein the confirmation message comprises an acknowledgement indicator indicating the switch has completed successfully”.
Therefore, in view of above, while Applicant’s remarks and arguments have been considered, they are not persuasive. The dependent claims 3-6, 9-13, 16 and 19-21 are not patentable according to the solid prior art teachings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, 16-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.757 V1.3.0 (2021-03) (“3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on architecture enhancements for 5G multicast-broadcast services; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated October 02, 2024), hereinafter “3GPP’757” in view of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3#110-e (R3-206533, as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated March 11, 2024), hereinafter “3GPP’533” in view of REN et al. (US 2021/0314840 A1), herein after “Ren”.
Regarding claim 1, 3GPP’757 discloses a method of wireless communication, implemented by a first access node (Figs. 6.24.2.2-1a – 6.24.2.2-1b, 6.27.2.5-1), the method comprising:
determining that a second access node does not support multicast and broadcast services(MBS) (Fig. 6.27.2.5-1, page 153, 154, 170, source gNB is aware that neighboring cells do not support MBS traffic delivery; handover to target gNB not supporting MBS);
requesting, upon determining (Fig. 6.27.2.5-1, Step 1, Step 2, Step 3-4, page 153-154, 170, NG RAN or source gNB) to perform a handover procedure for handing over a wireless device (Fig. 6.27.2.5-1, Step 1, Step 2, Step 3-4, page 153-154, 170, UE) to the second access node (Fig. 6.27.2.5-1, Step 1, Step 2, Step 3-4, page 153-154, 170, non-MBMS capable node or target gNB), a switch of an ongoing MBS session of the wireless device from a shared tunnel to a unicast tunnel with a core network (Fig. 6.27.2.5-1, Step 1, Step 2, Step 3-4, page 153-154, 170, handover to non-MBMS capable node; source gNB sends Unicast Delivery Request to SMF (Nsmf PDU session UpdateSMContextRequest)).
While 3GPP’757 implicitly refers to “initiating, after the switch, the handover procedure from the first access node to the second access node” (page 171, PDU session modification procedure), 3GPP’533 from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses receiving, from the core network, a confirmation message acknowledging the switch to the unicast tunnel (page 1-2, Option 1, source gNB sends a message to 5GC to enable the individual tunnel; tunnel mode is changed from shared to individual tunnel for the UE); and
initiating, after the switch (page 1-2, Option 1, tunnel mode changed from shared tunnel to individual), the handover procedure (page 1-2, Option 1, normal inter-gNB handover procedure) from the first access node to the second access node (page 1-2, Option 1, unicast QoS associated with multicast QoS flows via HANDOVER REQUEST message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “receiving, from the core network, a confirmation message acknowledging the switch to the unicast tunnel; and initiating, after the switch, the handover procedure from the first access node to the second access node” as taught by 3GPP’533, in the system of 3GPP’757, so that it would provide unicast solution that the shared tunnel is changed to individual tunnel before UE accesses to target gNB (3GPP’533, page 1).
While 3GPP’757 in view of 3GPP’533 implicitly refer to “the confirmation message comprises an acknowledgement indicator indicating the switch has completed successfully”, Ren from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses the confirmation message comprises an acknowledgement indicator indicating the switch has completed successfully (Fig.2, paragraphs [0094], [0095],[0097], [0098], confirmation from the core network (AMF) acknowledging the switch to the unicast tunnel, wherein the confirmation message comprises the IP address and the TEID information of the SGSN device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the confirmation message comprises an acknowledgement indicator indicating the switch has completed successfully” as taught by Ren, in the combined system of 3GPP’757 and 3GPP’533, so that it would provide seamless handover between the NG-RAN system and the E-UTRAN system in a case where an uncovered region of the NG-RAN system is not covered by the E-UTRAN system (Ren, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, 3GPP’757 discloses requesting the switch comprises: transmitting a request message to the core network indicating the switch to the unicast tunnel for MBS data for the ongoing MBS session (Fig. 6.27.2.5-1, Step 1, Step 2, Step 3-4, Step 10-11, page 153-154, 170-171, PDU session modification procedure).
Regarding claim 4, 3GPP’757 discloses the request message comprises information associated with the ongoing MBS session, and wherein the information includes an identifier of the ongoing MBS session or information regarding the shared tunnel (Fig. 6.27.2.5-1, page 153, 166-170, identifier of the ongoing MBS session or shared tunnel).
Regarding claim 5, 3GPP’757 discloses the request message comprises information associated with the unicast tunnel, and wherein the information includes an identifier of the unicast tunnel or Quality of Service (QoS) information associated with the unicast tunnel (Fig. 6.27.2.5-1, Step 1, Step 2, Step 3-4, page 166-167, 169-170, unicast PDU session with QoS flows associated with multicast session context).
Regarding claim 6, 3GPP’757 discloses the confirmation message comprises at least one of information of the ongoing MBS session, information of the unicast tunnel, or Quality of Service (QoS) information associated with the unicast tunnel (Fig. 6.27.2.5-1, page 169-170, unicast PDU session with QoS flows associated with multicast session context).
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1 from the perspective of a core network.
Regarding claim 9, 3GPP’757 discloses performing, by the core network, a handover procedure from the first access node to a second access node prior to transmitting the MBS data via the unicast tunnel to the second access node (Fig. 6.27.2.2-1, Step 2, Step 4, Step 5, page 166-167, handover procedure from the first access node to a second access node).
Regarding claim 10, 3GPP’757 discloses the core network includes a user plane function or an access and mobility management function (Fig. 6.27.2.5-1, Step 5).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 4 from the perspective of a core network.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 5 from the perspective of a core network.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 6 from the perspective of a core network.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 12.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 SITHU KO whose telephone number is 571-272-8647. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pmEST.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/SITHU KO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights