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 Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 07/06/2026.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 12, 16-17, 21, 25-26 and 29 have been amended.
Objection to claim 29 is withdrawn since it has been amended accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed on 07/06/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are related solely to an alternative that was not examined and is addressed in the instant Office Action with previously identified prior art, thus rendering the applicant’s arguments moot.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 16 and 33-35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2016/0007320, “Wang”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0298380, “Wang380”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wang unless otherwise mentioned.
Wang comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, a method performed by a Radio Access Network (RAN) node, the method comprising:
after a Multicast and Broadcast Services (MBS) session failure ([0148] “the eNB may report the identity of the bearer which has packet loss or report the identity of the bearer that has the largest amount of data.”), sending to a first core network node, a first message indicating that the MBS session has failed ([0141 and Fig. 5] “At block 501, an eNB report an overload indication (notification) to an MCE.”, [0138] “data loss in case of a failure or an error of an eNB resulted from an overloaded bearer” [0078] “the MCE selects an eNB in an MBSFN area, and configures the eNB to send usage information of eMBMS radio resources in the MBSFN area.”, and [0079] “the usage information of the eMBMS radio resources sent by the eNB may include an indication indicating there is a failure or an error in the eNB”).
It is noted that while disclosing analyzing usage information for MBMS, Wang does not specifically teach about a MBMS session ID. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Wang380 as follows;
a cause code for the MBS session failure ([Wang380, 0118] “The MBMS session establishment failure message returned by the DU to the CU includes any combination or at least one of the following: a unique interface identifier (that is, MBMS Session F1 AP ID) assigned by the CU on the F1 interface between the CU and the DU for the broadcast/multicast service, a unique interface identifier (that is, MBMS Session F1 AP ID) assigned by the DU on the F1 interface between the CU and the DU for the broadcast/multicast service, or a reason for establishment failure of the MBMS session.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify the eNB-originated failure/error indication message of Wang to include a cause code, such as the “reason for establishment failure of the MBMS session” taught by Wang380. Wang already teaches reporting an eNB error or failure to an MCE, identifying an affected bearer through a TMGI, forwarding the failure indication through the core network, and taking corrective action – such as establishing unicast service and releasing or modifying the affected eMBMS bearer.
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to add the failure reason/cause information from Wang380 to Wang’s failure indication so that the receiving MCE/core-network entities could distinguish the particular reason for the reported failure and select an appropriate response – for example, resource reconfiguration, session modification, session release, or unicast fallback. That modification would have provided more informative fault reporting, enabled more targeted and efficient session-management decisions, and would have been a predictable use of known MBMS failure-message fields in Wang’s existing eMBMS failure-reporting workflow.
Regarding claim 7, it is a method claim corresponding to the method claim 1 in a reciprocal way, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, it is a method claim by a second core network node corresponding to the method claim 1 in a reciprocal way, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 7,
wherein the first message further comprises an MBS session identifier (ID) for the failed MBS session ([Wang380, 0118] “([Wang380, 0118] “The MBMS session establishment failure message returned by the DU to the CU includes any combination or at least one of the following: a unique interface identifier (that is, MBMS Session F1 AP ID) assigned by the CU on the F1 interface between the CU and the DU for the broadcast/multicast service, a unique interface identifier (that is, MBMS Session F1 AP ID) assigned by the DU on the F1 interface between the CU and the DU for the broadcast/multicast service”)”),
the method further comprises:
after receiving the first message, sending to a second core network node, a second message indicating that the MBS session has failed;
wherein the second message comprises an MBS session identifier (ID) for the failed MBS session and/or a cause code for the MBS session failure (See Fig. 5 and [0151]), and/or
the second message comprises one or more of: one or more cell identifiers for cells in which the MBS session failure occurred; one or more MBS Quality of Service flow identifiers for the failed MBS session; and N3mb Downlink Tunnel Information (This alternative is not examined.).
Regarding claim 33, a Radio Access Network (RAN) node that comprises a processor and a memory, said memory containing instructions executable by said processor whereby said RAN node is operative to perform the method of claim 1 ([Wang380, 0171] “The electronic device includes one or more processors and a memory”, and [Wang380, 0173] “When executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs cause the one or more processors to implement the method in any embodiment of the present application.”).
Regarding claim 34, a first core network node that comprises a processor and a memory, said memory containing instructions executable by said processor whereby said first core network node is operative to perform the method of claim 7 ([Wang380, 0171] “The electronic device includes one or more processors and a memory”, and [Wang380, 0173] “When executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs cause the one or more processors to implement the method in any embodiment of the present application.”).
Regarding claim 35, a second core network node that comprises a processor and a memory, said memory containing instructions executable by said processor whereby said second core network node is operative to perform the method of claim 16 ([Wang380, 0171] “The electronic device includes one or more processors and a memory”, and [Wang380, 0173] “When executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs cause the one or more processors to implement the method in any embodiment of the present application.”).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2016/0007320, “Wang”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0298380, “Wang380”) and further in view of Prasad et al. (US 2020/0329347, “Prasad”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wang unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, it is noted that while disclosing analyzing usage information for MBMS, Wang does not specifically teach about QoS information. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Prasad as follows;
the method of claim 1 and the method of claim 7, respectively, wherein the first message further comprises an MBS session identifier (ID) for the failed session (See aforesaid [Wang380, 0118]), and the first message further comprises: one or more cell identifiers for cells in which the MBS session failure occurred; one or more MBS Quality of Service flow identifiers for the failed MBS session ([Prasad, 0054 and Fig. 8] “The request sent in step 801 may comprise one or more session attributes, such as a start indication (e.g., an MBMS start indication), an access indicator (e.g., an MBMS access indicator), an indication of the multicast/broadcast service area (e.g., an MBMS service area), quality of service (QoS) information”); and/or N3mb Downlink Tunnel Information (This alternative is not examined.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Wang by using the features of Prasad in order to effectively achieve MBS such that “The multicast broadcast gateway may send, to the node and via the control plane interface, one or more control signals.” [Prasad, Abstract].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the method of claim 1 and the method of claim 7, respectively, wherein the first message is sent on an N2 interface, the first core network node is an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) ([Prasad, 0040] “the base station 301 may also connect to a node (e.g., AMF 213) in the unicast core network via another control plane interface (e.g., N2).”), and/or the RAN node is a Next Generation RAN (NG-RAN) (This alternative is not examined.).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Prasad are the same as for claim 2.
Claim(s) 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2016/0007320, “Wang”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0298380, “Wang380”) and further in view of Xia et al. (US 2016/0072665, “Xia”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wang unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that while disclosing analyzing usage information for MBMS, Wang does not specifically teach about releasing a MBS session. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Xia as follows;
the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: before sending the first message, determining that the MBS session should be released based on condition changes; and releasing the MBS session ([Xia, 0042] “the mechanism to allow the node which reselects alternative nodes during a MBMS Session restoration procedure to release/stop a MBMS Session resource in the old control plane nodes once the path is recovered.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Wang by using the features of Xia in order to effectively recover from failures such that “a network node for restoring an MBMS session after path failure.” [Xia, 0022].
Claim(s) 10, 17-18, 21-22, 25-26 and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2016/0007320, “Wang”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0298380, “Wang380”) and further in view of Belling et al. (US 2023/0109786, “Belling”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wang unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that while disclosing analyzing usage information for MBMS, Wang does not specifically teach about MB-SMF. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Belling as follows;
the method of claim 8, wherein the second message is sent over an N11mb interface, and/or the second core network node is a Multicast/Broadcast Session Management Function (MB-SMF) ([Belling, 0010] “The AMF needs to provide appropriate information about the success and failure to the MB-SMF (cf. step 7 in FIG. 1).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Wang by using the features of Belling in order to effectively establish a MBS session such that “the MB-SMF discovers the AMF(s) based on the MBS service area and selects the appropriate AMF(s) for broadcast session establishment” [Belling, 0006].
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 16, wherein the second message further comprises an MBS session identifier (ID) for the failed MBS session (See aforesaid [Wang380, 0118]), and the second message further comprises one or more of: one or more cell identifiers for cells in which the MBS session failure occurred ([Belling, 0151] “the AMF may, when the timer expires before obtaining (i.e. receiving) a response of broadcast session establishment operation from all of the NG-RANs, a notification of broadcast session status update to the MB-SMF, which indicates failure of completion of broadcast session establishment operation at the NG-RANs and/or comprises a list of at least one of tracking areas, one or more cells or one or more identifiers of radio access elements”); one or more MBS Quality of Service flow identifiers for the failed MBS session; N3mb Downlink Tunnel Information; and/or an indication that the MBS session has been released (These alternatives are not examined.).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Belling are the same as for claim 10.
Regarding claim 18, the method of claim 16, wherein the first core network node is an Access and Mobility Management Function(AMF) and the second core network node is a Multicast/Broadcast Session Management Function(MB- SMF) (See [Belling, Fig. 1]),
the first core network node is a Multicast/Broadcast Session Management Function (MB- SMF) and the second core network node is a Network Exposure Function (NEF), or the first core network node is a Multicast/Broadcast Session Management Function (MB- SMF) and the second core network node is a Multicast/Broadcast Service Function (MBSF) (These alternatives are not examined.).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Belling are the same as for claim 10.
Regarding claim 21, the method of claim 16, wherein the method further comprises:
after receiving the second message, sending, to a third core network node, a third message indicating that the MBS session has failed (See Fig. 5 for 504.),
wherein the third message is one of a MBSSession StatusNotify message and a Delivery Status Notification message ([Belling, 0099] “the method or process may comprise an operation (S130) of issuing (e.g. causing transmission of) a notification of broadcast session status update to the session management element or function upon obtaining one or several responses of (successful/unsuccessful) broadcast session establishment operation”, and [Belling, 0007] “the MB-SMF can provide an MBS Session Delivery Status Indication for Broadcast”), and/or
the third core network node is one of: a Network Exposure Function (NEF), a Multicast/Broadcast Service Function (MBSF), an Application Function (AF), and an Application Server (AS) (This alternative is not examined.).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Belling are the same as for claim 10.
Regarding claim 22, the method of claim 21, wherein the third message comprises one or more of: a MBS session identifier (ID) for the failed MBS session (See [Belling, Fig. 1] for step 8 between SMF and UPF.); one or more cell identifiers for cells in which the MBS session failure occurred; one or more MBS Quality of Service flow identifiers for the failed MBS session; a cause code for the MBS session failure; and an indication that the MBS session has been released (These alternatives are not examined.).
Regarding claim 25, the method of claim 16, wherein the first core network node is a Multicast/Broadcast Session Management Function (MB- SMF) (See [Belling, Fig. 1] for step 2.), or a Network Exposure Function(NEF), and the second core network node is an Application Function (AF) (See [Belling, Fig. 1] for step 2 from MB-SMF to AMF.) or the first core network node is a Multicast/Broadcast Service Function (MBSF), and the second core network node is an Application Server (AS) (This alternative is not examined.).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Belling are the same as for claim 10.
Regarding claim 26, the method of claim 25, wherein the method further comprises: adjusting a policy of a service based on the MBS session failure ([0044] “adjusting, by the GCSE AS, scheduling of services transported on the eMBMS radio resources according to the usage information of the eMBMS radio resources.”), and/or notifying a user equipment that the MBS session has failed (This alternative is not examined.).
Regarding claim 29, the method of claim 21, wherein the third message is a Delivery Status Notification message ([Belling, 0006 and Fig. 1] “the MB-SMF can provide an MBS Session Delivery Status Indication for Broadcast”).
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 Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights