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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it appears to refer to one or more drawings e.g. Fig. 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 10 and 20 are 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.
Claim 10 recites two alternative situations, 1. Where a failure is detected and 2. Where a failure is not detected. However, in neither one of these situations, the claimed invention performs optimization. This appears to be in contrast with the disclosure and is perceived by the office as a typographical error. The claims are examined interpreting the claim language stating the “not optimize” is “optimize” in line 5. The claims are examined as best understood by the examiner.
Similarly, claim 20 is also rejected based on reasons described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-12, 18-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIM et al (US 2012/0099419)
Regarding claim 1, 11, KIM discloses a method for processing information, applied to a terminal device, comprising:
obtaining failure information for a failure occurring on the terminal device, wherein the failure information comprises service information associated with a multicast/broadcast service (MBS) service performed and/or supported by the terminal device (KIM: ¶45-49, the terminal determines/obtains information for a failure of the MBMS service at the terminal); and
transmitting the failure information to a network side device (KIM: ¶45-49, transmit the information regarding the failure, to the network side device).
Regarding claim 2, 12, KIM discloses the method of claim 1/11, wherein the service information associated with the MBS service is configured to determine, by the network side device, whether to optimize a configured network parameter (KIM: ¶49-50, ¶62, the network device checks the information in the failure report, in order to determine to optimize a network/control parameter).
Regarding claim 8, 18, KIM discloses method of claim 1/11, wherein transmitting the failure information to the network side device comprises: transmitting the failure information to the network side device by carrying the failure information in at least one of the following reports: an RLF report, a connection establishment failure report, a successful handover report, or a random access report (KIM: ¶85, terminal reports failure in a random access procedure equivalent to a random access report).
Regarding claim 9, 19, KIM discloses method for processing information, applied to a network side device, comprising:
receiving failure information transmitted from a terminal device, wherein the failure information comprises service information associated with a multicast/broadcast service (MBS) service performed and/or supported by the terminal device (KIM: ¶45-49, the terminal determines/obtains information for a failure of the MBMS service at the terminal; transmit the information regarding the failure, to the network side device); and
determining whether to optimize a configured network parameter based on the service information associated with the MBS service (KIM: ¶49-50, ¶62, the network device checks the information in the failure report, in order to determine to optimize a network/control parameter).
Regarding claim 10, 20, KIM discloses method of claim 9/19, wherein determining whether to optimize the configured network parameter based on the service information associated with the MBS service comprises: in case that the service information associated with the MBS service comprises failure indication information, determining to not optimize the configured network parameter; or in case that the service information associated with the MBS service does not comprise failure indication information and the service information associated with the MBS service indicates that the terminal device is performing the MBS service, determining to not optimize the configured network parameter (KIM: ¶49-50, ¶62, the network device checks the information in the failure report, in order to determine to optimize a network/control parameter; optimization is only when the failure occurs and not when the failure is not reported or does not occur at the UE).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-4,13-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (US 2012/0099419) in view of WANG et al (US 2016/0021561).
Regarding claim 3-4, 13-14, KIM discloses method of claim 1/11, wherein obtaining the failure information for the failure occurring on the terminal device comprises:
obtaining the failure information for the failure occurring on the terminal device (KIM: ¶45-49, the terminal determines/obtains information for a failure of the MBMS service at the terminal).
KIM remains silent, however, WANG et al (US 2016/0021561) discloses in case of determining that a handover failure or a radio link failure (RLF) has occurred (WANG: ¶114-121, ¶159, ¶3, the handover failure is determined which is determined as the failure information).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of KIM would have been motivated to use the teachings of WANG as it provides a low failure rate by taking preemptive measures to avoid anticipate handover failure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of KIM with teachings of WANG in order to improve robustness of the handover.
Regarding claim 4, 14, KIM discloses method of claim 1/11, wherein the service information associated with the MBS service comprises at least one of the following:
a service identifier of the MBS service;
a delivery mode corresponding to the MBS service;
a priority of the MBS service; or
failure indication information (KIM: ¶45-49, the terminal determines/obtains information for a failure of the MBMS service at the terminal and sends the report for the failure);
KIM remains silent, however, WANG et al (US 2016/0021561) discloses the failure indication information is configured to represent that the failure occurs since the terminal device does not select an optimal cell for a handover to maintain continuity of a specified service and the specified service comprises the MBS service (WANG: ¶114-121, ¶159, ¶3, the handover failure is determined which is determined as the failure information).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of KIM would have been motivated to use the teachings of WANG as it provides a low failure rate by taking preemptive measures to avoid anticipate handover failure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of KIM with teachings of WANG in order to improve robustness of the handover.
Claim(s) 5, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM modified by WANG as applied to claim 4/14 above, further in view of FUJISHIRO et al (US 2026/0059371)
Regarding claim 5, 15, KIM modified by WANG discloses a method of claim 4/14.
KIM modified by WANG remains silent regarding, however, FUJISHIRO et al (US 2026/0059371) discloses wherein the delivery mode comprises one or more of: receiving MBS service in a broadcast mode, receiving MBS service in a multicast mode, or receiving MBS service in a unicast mode (FUJISHIRO: ¶197-200, the PTM information is included in the report message).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of KIM modified by WANG would have been motivated to use the teachings of FUJISHIRO as it provides a way to include “enhancement state information”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of KIM modified by WANG with teachings of FUJISHIRO in order to improve reporting to include “enhancement state information” thereby improving resolution decision at the network.
Claim(s) 6, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM modified by WANG as applied to claim 4/14 above, further in view of FUJISHIRO2 et al (US 2024/0179722).
Regarding claim 6, 16, KIM modified by WANG discloses a method of claim 4/14.
KIM modified by WANG remains silent regarding, however, FUJISHIRO2 et al (US 2024/0179722) discloses wherein the service information associated with the MBS service further comprises a mapping between the delivery mode and the service identifier, the service identifier of the MBS service comprising a temporary mobile group identity (TMGI) and/or a service area identity (SAI) (FUJISHIRO: ¶232, ¶297, a one-to-one mapping between the delivery mode and TMGI, the service information being TMGI).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of KIM modified by WANG would have been motivated to use the teachings of FUJISHIRO2 as it provides a an advantage of avoiding unnecessary power consumption of the UE caused when the UE tries to receive an uninterested MBS session (¶279). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of KIM modified by WANG with teachings of FUJISHIRO2 in order to improve power consumption.
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM modified by WANG as applied to claim 4/14, further in view of SHRIVASTAVA et al (US 2024/0305957).
Regarding claim 7, 17, KIM modified by WANG discloses a method of claim 4/14.
KIM modified by WANG remains silent regarding, however, SHRIVASTAVA et al (US 2024/0305957) discloses a priority of the MBS service comprises at least one of the following: a priority of the delivery mode corresponding to the MBS service; or priorities of different MBS services in a same delivery mode (SHRIVASTAVA: ¶105, a priority associated with the MBS service and its delivery mode).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of KIM modified by WANG would have been motivated to use the teachings of SHRIVASTAVA as it provides gNB with flexibility to configure which service is required and requested by the UE with a priority and select most appropriate handover target (¶100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of KIM modified by WANG with teachings of SHRIVASTAVA in order to improve network session management decision.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892
Document U discloses Multicast and broadcast services (MCBCS) are downlink point-to-multipoint ser vices in which a common set of multimedia data packets are transmitted with coordination from one or more BSs to multiple terminals in the designated MCBCS ser vice area. This feature in concept is similar to the MBMS features in 3GPP systems, for example, HSPA and LTE, and BCMCS features in 3GPP2 systems, for example, in EV-DO Rev A, in which the resources within a radio channel can be shared dynamically between point-to-point unicast services and point-to-multipoint broad cast and multicast services.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/OMER S MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights