DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application field on 07/17/2024, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by GAN et al. (hereinafter, “GAN”; CN113396610). (For citation purpose, examiner has used English translation of CN113396610. The English translation and the original copy describe the same innovation. The publication date for CN113396610 is Sep/14/2021, therefore; it qualifies as a prior art under 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(2)).
In response to claim 1,
GAN teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a home session management function (H-SMF), from a visited session management function (V-SMF) in a visited public land mobile network (VPLMN), a join request originating from a user equipment (UE) roaming in the VPLMN to join a multicast multicast and broadcast services (MBS) session (page 2, paragraph 1, having communication between one or more eNBs and one or more UEs using 3GPP standard is interpreted as an eNB can communicate with multiple UEs at once or can have a joint a multicast multicast and broadcast services (MBS) session, page 9, paragraph 1,using a VPLAM for PDU session (requested by a UE)) is read as using a visited public land mobile network (VPLMN), for a message originating from a user equipment (UE) roaming in the VPLMN to join a multicast and broadcast services (MBS) session, page 9, section “1.From UE to AMF”, paragraphs 1-2, instantiated PDU session by a UE is read using a joint session message, page 11, section 6, “V-SMF-H-SMF”, first paragraph, sending a “Nsmf_PDUSession_Create requests” by the V-SMF to H-SMF is interpreted as receiving, by a home session management function (H-SMF), from a visited session management function (V-SMF) in a visited public land mobile network (VPLMN)); and
determining, by the H-SMF, whether the UE is authorized to join the multicast MBS session (page 12, paragraph 2, section “H-SMF to V-SMF” sending a response message by the H-SMF to V-SMF for indicating whether a PDU session is accepted explicitly teaches determining, by the H-SMF, whether the UE is authorized to join the multicast MBS session),
wherein the determining is based upon at least one of the following: a local configuration in a home public land mobile network (page 12, paragraph 2, “H-SMF to V-SMF”, using QoS rules or QoS stream -level parameter associate with a QoS rule is read as using a local configuration in a home public land mobile network),
information received from an application function during establishment of the multicast MBS session, or user subscription data received from a user data manager, and performing at least one of:
based on determining that the UE is authorized to join the multicast MBS session, transmitting, by the H-SMF, to the V-SMF, an acceptance response configured to establish at least one unicast quality of service (QoS) flow corresponding to multicast QoS flow information received from a home multicast/broadcast session management function (H-MB-SMF) (page 11, section 6, “V-SMF-H-SMF”, step 7-12, assigning an association between the UE and the V-SMF ID used for the PDU session explicitly teaches authorizing to join the multicast MBS session, transmitting, by the H-SMF, to the V-SMF, page 12, paragraph 2, “H-SMF to V-SMF”, sending a NSMF-PDUSession _Create response by the H-SMF to the V-SMF using the QoS rules is interpreted as an acceptance response configured to establish at least one unicast quality of service (QoS) flow corresponding to multicast QoS flow information received from a home multicast/broadcast session management function (H-MB-SMF)), or
based on determining that the UE is not authorized to join the multicast MBS session, transmitting, by the H-SMF, to the V-SMF, a rejection response comprising error cause information indicating that the UE is not authorized to join the multicast MBS session while roaming.
In response to claim 3,
GAN teaches wherein the join request is comprised within an update request (page 9, section “1.From UE to AMF”, paragraphs 1-2, initiating a PDU session by a UE in order to create a new ODU session is read as the join request is comprised within an update request).
In response to claim 4,
GAN teaches wherein the acceptance response indicates no relation of the at least one unicast QoS flow to the multicast MBS session (page 12, paragraph 2, “H-SMF to V-SMF”, sending a NSMF-PDUSession _Create response by the H-SMF to the V-SMF using the QoS rules explicitly teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 9,
GAN teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a visited session management function (V-SMF), from a UE, a join request requesting that the UE joins a multicast MBS session (page 2, paragraph 1, having communication between one or more eNBs and one or more UEs using 3GPP standard is interpreted as an eNB can communicate with multiple UEs at once or can have a joint a multicast multicast and broadcast services (MBS) session, page 9, section “1.From UE to AMF”, paragraphs 1-2, initiating a PDU session by a UE is read as the UE send a joint session message, page 11, paragraphs 1-2, choosing a different V-SMF in a VPLAM by the AMF for sending a urgent request or existing emergency PDU session is interpreted as the V-SMF receives a message a join request requesting that the UE joins a multicast MBS session);
determining, by the V-SMF, that the PDU session associated with the join request is a home routed PDU session towards an H-SMF (page 11, section 6, “V-SMF-H-SMF, first paragraph, sending a “Nsmf_PDUSession_Create requests”, creating a PDU session for one or more H-SMF by the V-SMF explicitly teaches determining, by the V-SMF, that the PDU session associated with the join request is a home routed PDU session towards an H-SMF);
transmitting, based on the determining, the join request to the identified H-SMF (page 11, section 6, “V-SMF-H-SMF, first paragraph, sending a “Nsmf_PDUSession_Create requests”, creating a PDU session for one or more H-SMF by the V-SMF explicitly teaches this limitation);
receiving, by the V-SMF, at least one of the following: an acceptance response to the join request comprising a request to establish at least one unicast QoS flow (page 12, paragraph 2, “H-SMF to V-SMF”, sending a NSMF-PDUSession _Create response by the H-SMF to the V-SMF using the QoS rules explicitly teaches this limitation), or a rejection response; and transmitting, by the V-SMF, the at least one of the acceptance response to the join request or the rejection response towards the UE.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
Claims 2, 5-8 and 10-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As for claim 2, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein error cause information indicates that the UE is not authorized to join the multicast MBS session while roaming in the VPLMN.”
The closet prior art in the record GAN et al.’s (CN113396610) teaching on page 12, paragraph 2, section “H-SMF to V-SMF” about sending a response message by the H-SMF to V-SMF for indicating whether a PDU session is accepted explicitly teaches determining, by the H-SMF, whether the UE is authorized to join the multicast MBS session, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for claim 5, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the acceptance response indicates a relation of the at least one unicast QoS flow to the multicast MBS session, and at least one of the following: unicast QoS flow information, or at least one of the following: an indication that shared MBS traffic delivery shall not be used, an indication individual delivery shall be used, or an indication of a roaming user equipment.”
The closet prior art in the record GAN et al.’s (CN113396610) teaching on page 12, paragraph 2, section “H-SMF to V-SMF” about page 12, paragraph 2, “H-SMF to V-SMF”, sending a NSMF-PDUSession _Create response by the H-SMF to the V-SMF using the QoS rules, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for claim 6, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the UE is authorized to join the multicast MBS session, the method further comprising: receiving, by the H-SMF, from the V-SMF, a leave request requesting the UE to leave a multicast MBS session that is managed in the PLMN of the H-SMF; and transmitting, by the H-SMF, to the V-SMF, a request to remove at least one unicast QoS flow corresponding to at least one multicast QoS flow associated with the multicast session.”
The closet prior art in the record GAN et al.’s (CN113396610) teaching on page 12, paragraph 2, section “H-SMF to V-SMF” about page 12, paragraph 2, “H-SMF to V-SMF”, sending a NSMF-PDUSession _Create response by the H-SMF to the V-SMF using the QoS rules, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for claim 7, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “determining, by the H-SMF, that the UE is to be removed from the multicast MBS session; and transmitting, by the H-SMF, to the V-SMF, a request comprising at least one of the following: a request to remove unicast QoS flows associated with the multicast MBS session, a request to indicate to the UE that the UE is removed from the MBS multicast session, or a request to remove the UE from the multicast MBS session.”
The closet prior art in the record GAN et al.’s (CN113396610) teaching on page 12, paragraph 2, section “H-SMF to V-SMF” about page 12, paragraph 2, “H-SMF to V-SMF”, sending a NSMF-PDUSession _Create response by the H-SMF to the V-SMF using the QoS rules, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Claim 8 depends n claim 7.
As for claim 10, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the receiving further comprises: receiving, by the V-SMF, a response accepting the join request and configured to establish at least one unicast QoS flow, wherein the response indicates for the at least one unicast QoS flow at least one of the following: shared MBS traffic delivery shall not be used, individual delivery shall be used, or that the UE is roaming; and transmitting, by the V-SMF, session management signaling configured to establish at least one unicast QoS flow, wherein the session management signaling indicates for the at least one unicast QoS flow at least one of the following: an indication that shared MBS traffic delivery shall not be used, an indication that individual delivery shall be used, or an indication that the UE is roaming.”
The closet prior art in the record GAN et al.’s (CN113396610) teaching on page 12, paragraph 2, section “H-SMF to V-SMF” about page 12, paragraph 2, “H-SMF to V-SMF”, sending a NSMF-PDUSession _Create response by the H-SMF to the V-SMF using the QoS rules, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Claim 11 depends on claim 10.
As for claim 12, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “receiving, by the V-SMF, from the UE, a leave request requesting that the UE leaves the multicast MBS session; and transmitting, by the V-SMF, the leave request to the H-SMF.”
The closet prior art in the record GAN et al.’s (CN113396610) teaching on page 12, paragraph 2, section “H-SMF to V-SMF” about page 12, paragraph 2, “H-SMF to V-SMF”, sending a NSMF-PDUSession _Create response by the H-SMF to the V-SMF using the QoS rules, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for claim 13, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “receiving, by the V-SMF, from the H-SMF, a request to indicate to the UE that the UE is removed from the MBS multicast session; and transmitting, by the V-SMF, to the UE, an indication that the UE is removed from the MBS multicast session.”
The closet prior art in the record GAN et al.’s (CN113396610) teaching on page 12, paragraph 2, section “H-SMF to V-SMF” about page 12, paragraph 2, “H-SMF to V-SMF”, sending a NSMF-PDUSession _Create response by the H-SMF to the V-SMF using the QoS rules, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Claim 14 depends on claim 13.
As for claim 15, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “receiving, by the V-SMF, from the H-SMF, a request to trigger removal of the UE from the multicast MBS session; determining based on stored information unicast QoS flows related to the multicast MBS session; transmitting a request to remove the unicast QoS flows associated with the multicast MBS session from the PDU session; and transmitting a request to the UE to indicate that the UE is removed from the MBS multicast session.”
The closet prior art in the record GAN et al.’s (CN113396610) teaching on page 12, paragraph 2, section “H-SMF to V-SMF” about page 12, paragraph 2, “H-SMF to V-SMF”, sending a NSMF-PDUSession _Create response by the H-SMF to the V-SMF using the QoS rules, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for claim 16, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “transmitting, by the V-SMF, to the UE, at least one associated cause received in the request from the H-SMF.”
The closet prior art in the record GAN et al.’s (CN113396610) teaching on page 12, paragraph 2, section “H-SMF to V-SMF” about page 12, paragraph 2, “H-SMF to V-SMF”, sending a NSMF-PDUSession _Create response by the H-SMF to the V-SMF using the QoS rules, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for claim 17, this claim is allowed, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “receiving, by the H-SMF, from a V-SMF in a first VPLMN, an N2SM container handover required transfer information element comprising multicast MBS session information of at least one MBS session that the UE has joined.”
The closet prior art in the record Wu et al.’s (CN110049517) teaches on page 37, step 508 about sending a N2SM message by a AMF to a H-SMF, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Claims 18-20 depend on claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20180279397…………………..paragraph 147.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights