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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 08/02/2024.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Claims 1-14 are rejected.
Claims 1, 5 and 11 are independent claims.
-
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. Claims 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
6. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the broadcast service or service class" in line 7 and "the user equipment" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
7. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the broadcast service or service class" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
8. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the establishment" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1, thus they are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 6-10 depend on claim 5, thus they are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 12-14 depend on claim 11, thus they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 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.
10. 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.
11. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
12. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamran Etemad et al. (US 2018/0132179 A1), hereinafter Etemad, in view of Shu GUO et al. (US 2024/0187849 A1), hereinafter GUO, and Amol Tuli et al. (US 2015/0163659 A1), hereinafter Tuli.
For claim 1, Etemad teaches an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory (Etemad, Fig. 6 and paragraph 62) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive a service announcement for a broadcast session or service class indicating whether the apparatus is allowed to access the broadcast service or service class (Etemad, Fig. 4 step 404 and paragraphs 54-55.);
determine, based on the service announcement, whether the apparatus is allowed to access a broadcast session or service class (Etemad, Fig. 4 step 404 and paragraphs 54-55.); and
in response to determining that the user equipment is allowed to access a broadcast session or service class, transmit a multicast/broadcast service interest indication associated with the broadcast session or service class upon completion of a radio resource request (Etemad, Fig. 5 and paragraphs 58-61.).
GUO further teaches the UE which attached to a public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) joins MBS session after receiving a service announcement (GUO, Fig. 1 and paragraph 34.).
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 method taught in Etemad with the UE which attached to a public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) joins MBS session after receiving a service announcement taught in GUO. Because both references teach MBS session establishment in the same technical field, GUO explicitly teaches the UE attached to the PLMN during the MBS session.
Tuli further teaches the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN (Tuli, Figs. 2, 8 and paragraphs 55-60.).
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 method taught in Etemad and GUO with the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN taught in Tuli. Because all references teach broadcast multicast service in the same technical field, Tuli explicitly teaches the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN.
For claim 2, Etemad, GUO and Tuli further teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is caused to determine whether the apparatus is allowed to access a broadcast session or service class in the public land mobile network based at least upon the service announcement indicating at least one home public land mobile network of allowed or disallowed inbound roamers and at least one home public land mobile network of the apparatus (Etemad, Fig. 4 step 404 and paragraphs 54-55.).
For claim 3, Etemad, GUO and Tuli further teach the apparatus of claims 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: in response to determining that the apparatus is allowed to access a broadcast session or service class in the public land mobile network, display an indication of whether the broadcast session or service class is accessible (Etemad, Fig. 4 step 404 and paragraphs 54-55. See also Fig. 6 and paragraph 71 for display.).
For claim 4, Etemad, GUO and Tuli further teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: receive a multicast/broadcast service interest indication allowed notification or multicast/broadcast service interest indication disallowed notification associated with the broadcast session or service class (Etemad, Fig. 5 and paragraphs 58-61.).
13. Claims 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamran Etemad et al. (US 2018/0132179 A1), hereinafter Etemad, in view of Amol Tuli et al. (US 2015/0163659 A1), hereinafter Tuli.
For claim 5, Etemad teaches an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory (Etemad, Fig. 6 and paragraph 62) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
determine whether a broadcast session or service class is accessible by a UE (Etemad, Fig. 5 and paragraphs 58-61.); and
in response to determining that a broadcast session or service class is accessible by the UE, transmit a service announcement for a broadcast session or service class indicating whether the UE is allowed to access the broadcast service or service class (Etemad, Fig. 5 and paragraphs 58-61.).
Tuli further teaches the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN (Tuli, Figs. 2, 8 and paragraphs 55-60.).
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 method taught in Etemad with the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN taught in Tuli. Because both references teach broadcast multicast service in the same technical field, Tuli explicitly teaches the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN.
For claim 6, Etemad and Tuli further teach the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the service announcement further indicates at least one home public land mobile network of allowed or disallowed inbound roamers (Tuli, Figs. 2, 8 and abstract, paragraphs 55-60.).
For claim 7, Etemad and Tuli further teach the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the determination is based at least upon configured information (Etemad, Figs. 5 and paragraphs 37, 56 and 61.).
For claim 8, Etemad and Tuli further teach the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: transmit a request for establishment of the broadcast session or service to a network entity, the request comprising an indication of whether inbound roamers are allowed to access the broadcast session or service (Etemad, Fig. 4 step 404 and paragraphs 54-55. 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 method taught in Etemad with the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN taught in Tuli. Because both references teach broadcast multicast service in the same technical field, Tuli explicitly teaches the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN.).
For claim 9, Etemad and Tuli further teach the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: receive a response to a request comprising a second indication of whether inbound roamers are allowed to access the broadcast session or service, wherein the apparatus is caused to determine whether a broadcast session or service class is accessible by inbound roamers based at least upon the second indication (Etemad, Fig. 4 step 404 and paragraphs 54-55. 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 method taught in Etemad with the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN taught in Tuli. Because both references teach broadcast multicast service in the same technical field, Tuli explicitly teaches the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN.).
For claim 10, Etemad and Tuli further teach the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the request indicates at least one service class (Etemad, Figs. 5 and abstract, paragraphs 34, 37, 56, 59 and 61.).
For claim 11, Etemad teaches an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory (Etemad, Fig. 6 and paragraph 62) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive a request for the establishment of a broadcast session or service from a network entity (Etemad, Fig. 4 step 404 and paragraphs 54-55.);
determine whether inbound roamers are allowed to access the broadcast session or service (Etemad, Fig. 4 step 408 and paragraph 56.); and
transmit a response to the request indicating whether inbound roamers are allowed to access the broadcast session or service (Etemad, Fig. 5 and paragraphs 58-61.).
Tuli further teaches the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN (Tuli, Figs. 2, 8 and paragraphs 55-60.).
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 method taught in Etemad with the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN taught in Tuli. Because both references teach broadcast multicast service in the same technical field, Tuli explicitly teaches the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN.
For claim 12, Etemad and Tuli further teach the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the request indicates at least one service class (Etemad, Figs. 5 and abstract, paragraphs 34, 37, 56, 59 and 61.).
For claim 13, Etemad and Tuli further teach the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the apparatus is caused to determine whether inbound roamers are allowed to access the broadcast session or service based upon at least one of: an identity of the network entity; the at least one service class; configured information; or information obtained from a database (Etemad, Figs. 5 and paragraphs 58-59.).
For claim 14, Etemad and Tuli further teach the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: transmit a request to establish or start the broadcast session or service comprising an indication of whether inbound roamers are allowed to access the broadcast session or service (Etemad, Figs. 4 and paragraphs 54-56. Tuli, Figs. 2, 8 and paragraphs 55-60. 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 method taught in Etemad with the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN taught in Tuli. Because both references teach broadcast multicast service in the same technical field, Tuli explicitly teaches the UE as inbound roaming device in the PLMN).
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILL W LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8749. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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 Jiang can be reached at 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.
/WILL W LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights