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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed on May 22, 2026. Claims 1, 8-14 are amended, and claims 15-16 are newly added.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/11/2026 was filed after the mailing date of NF rejection dated on 11/25/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot in new ground of rejection.
Xiong discloses determining whether a user equipment activating a multicast service is to establish a Protocol Data Unit session and acquire an Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned by a Session Management Function (SMF) entity, and activating the multicast service for the user equipment through the SMF entity based on the determination. Session Management Function entity and the corresponding session management function entity according to the above aspects of the present disclosure, the session management function entity may receive a request for requesting to start a multicast/broadcast service session from a policy control function entity, where the request may include a fourth identifier corresponding to a multicast/broadcast service, a quality of service rule of at least one data flow corresponding to the multicast/broadcast service, and an identifier of the multicast/broadcast service session; and the session management function entity may perform the multicast/broadcast service session according to the request to transmit multicast/broadcast service data, thereby realizing the application of the PCC technology to the transmission of multicast/broadcast service data, and achieving the integration of PCC with the transmission of multicast/broadcast service data. Therefore, after carefully reviewing the prior arts, the rejection is sustained for this claim.
For at least the foregoing reasons, claim 8 recite similar features to claim 1. Claims 2-7, and 9-16 each depend from one of the respective independent claims, and rendered obvious by the combination of the prior arts Xiong, for at least the same reasons by virtue of their dependencies. Examiner respectfully sustains the rejections.
Furthermore, as it is Applicant's right to continue to claim as broadly as possible their invention, it is also the Examiner's right to continue to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner's position that the detailed functionality that allows Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. By the rejection above, the applicant must submit amendments to the claims in order to distinguish over the prior art use in the rejection that discloses different features of Applicant's claimed invention.
Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which distinguishes over the prior art or to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. It is requested that Applicant clearly and distinctly define the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chunshan Xiong (US Publication 2022/0217508) hereafter Xiong, in view of Lee et al. (US Publication 2023/0147538) hereafter Lee
As per claim 1, Xiong discloses a method for a Policy Control Function (PCF) entity comprising: receiving, by the PCF entity, at least one of first information corresponding to a Data Network Name (DNN), and second information corresponding to Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) (paragraphs 0073, 0102-103: S-NSSAI and DNN used for identifying a data network corresponding to an application in the multicast service); checking whether the at least one of the DNN and the S-NSSAI are within a UE Route Selection Policy rule (URSP rule) (paragraphs 0228-230: UE route selection policy rule corresponding to the multicast service with S-NSSI and the DNN). Although, Xiong discloses session management entity and UE achieving compatibility, but he fails to expressly disclose checking whether the at least one of first information corresponding to the DNN and second information corresponding to the S-NSSAI are compliant to a UE Route Selection Policy rule (URSP rule).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses the claimed limitation of receiving, by the PCF entity, at least one of first information corresponding to a Data Network Name (DNN) (paragraphs 39, 92); checking, by the PCF entity, whether the at least one of first information corresponding to the DNN and second information corresponding to the S-NSSAI are compliant to a UE Route Selection Policy rule (URSP rule) (paragraphs 20-21, 58-60: (Table-US-00001-00003), 0055-56: compatibility with URSP rules UE route selection policy).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lees’ teaching with Xiong. One would be motived to match the DNN, S-NSSAI, with URSP rules among the UE policy for the UE, and other information provided by the UE for being consistent and establishing the session to appropriately send the result to the network.
As per claim 2, Xiong in view of Lee discloses the method comprising: updating the URSP rule based on the information related to an application in a case where the URSP rule is not a latest URSP rule (Xiong: paragraphs 0048-50, Lee: 37, 88, 109: update the URSP rule and UE policy).
As per claim 3, Xiong in view of Lee discloses the method comprising: updating the URSP rule in a User Equipment (UE) in a case where at least one of the DNN and the S-NSSAI are not compliant to the URSP rule (paragraphs 0183-184, 0193: transmit another request with necessary corresponding information to the multicast service; Lee: 37, 88, 109).
As per claim 4, Xiong in view of Lee discloses the method, wherein the receiving and the checking are related to a Protocol Data Unit session establishment (PDU session establishment) procedure (paragraphs 0073, 0114, 0199: acquiring function entity for PDU session establishment).
As per claim 5, Xiong in view of Lee discloses the method comprising: receiving, from a User Equipment (UE), information related to URSP rule enforcement (paragraphs 0048-49, 0183-184: UE with URSP rules corresponding to each multicast services).
As per claim 6, Xiong in view of Lee discloses the method wherein the DNN and the S-NSSAI are sent from a User Equipment (UE) (paragraphs 0046-47, 0183-184: UE determining information corresponding to the service).
As per claim 7, Xiong in view of Lee discloses the method comprising: checking the information related to the URSP rule enforcement based on the information relate to an application (paragraphs 0102, 0129, 0183-184).
Claim 8 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claims 9-14 and 16 are listed all the same elements of claims 2-7 and 15 respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2-7 and 15 apply equally as well to claims 9-14 and 16 respectively.
As per claim 15, Xiong in view of Lee discloses the method comprising receiving third information related to an application of a user equipment (UE), wherein whether the at least one of the DNN and the S-NSSAI are compliant to the URSP rule is checked based on the third information (paragraphs 57, 88-89, Lee: paragraphs 28, 37-39).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 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 FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights