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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 14-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 7-13 of U.S. Patent No. [12,513,201, hereinafter refers '201].
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation of “to receive an indication whether a transmission mode for inactive/idle reception of multicast is applied for a multicast session, and based on the indication, perform procedures to enable reception of the multicast session using the transmission mode for inactive/idle mode reception” corresponds to claim limitation of “receive an indication whether a transmission mode for inactive mode reception of multicast is applied for a multicast session, and based on the indication, perform procedures to enable reception of the multicast session using the transmission mode for inactive mode reception of multicast for the multicast session.” Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 1 is met by the rejection of claim 1 of ‘201.
Regarding claim 3, the claim limitation of “to send a join request message for the multicast session to a network control element, and receive a join accept message from the network control element, wherein the join accept message comprises the indication as to whether the transmission mode for inactive/idle reception is enabled for the multicast session” corresponds to claim limitation of “wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus-user equipment to: send a join request message for the multicast session to a network control element, and receive a join accept message from the network control element.” Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 3 is met by the rejection of claim 3 of ‘201.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation of “to indicate support for idle/inactive reception of multicast in the join request message” corresponds to claim limitation of “indicate support for inactive mode reception of multicast for the multicast session.” Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 4 is met by the rejection of claim 4 of ‘201.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitation of “wherein the procedures to enable reception of the multicast session using the transmission mode for inactive/idle mode reception comprise monitoring broadcasted information whether the transmission mode for inactive/idle reception of multicast is applied for the multicast session in the cell where the UE is located” corresponds to claim limitation of “wherein the procedures to enable reception of the multicast session using the transmission mode for inactive mode reception of multicast for the multicast session comprise information whether the transmission mode for inactive mode reception of multicast is applied for the multicast session in the cell where the user equipment is located.” Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 5 is met by the rejection of claim 5 of ‘201.
Regarding claim 6, the claim limitation of “wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to receive data of the multicast session while in RRC-inactive or RRC-idle state” corresponds to claim limitation of “wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the user equipment to: receive data of the multicast session while in radio resource control (RRC)-inactive.” Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 6 is met by the rejection of claim 6 of ‘201.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation of “wherein, when inactive/idle reception of multicast is to be applied for the multicast session, the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to omit feedback concerning reception of the multicast session to the network while the transmission mode for inactive/idle reception of multicast is applied, or transmit less feedback concerning reception of the multicast session to the network while the transmission mode for inactive/idle reception of multicast is applied than in case the transmission mode for inactive/idle reception of multicast is not applied for the multicast session” corresponds to claim limitation of “wherein the user equipment is caused to perform procedures by configuring operations based on the indication to omit feedback concerning reception of the multicast session to a network while the transmission mode for inactive mode reception of multicast for the multicast session is applied.” Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 7 is met by the rejection of claim 1 of ‘201.
Regarding claim 14, the claim limitation of “receive a join request message for a multicast session from a user equipment, and send a join accept message in response to the join request message, wherein the join accept message comprises an indication as to whether a transmission mode for inactive/idle reception of multicast is to be enabled for the multicast session” corresponds to claim limitation of “receive a join request message for a multicast session from a user equipment, and send a join accept message in response to the join request message, wherein the join accept message comprises an indication as to whether a transmission mode for inactive mode reception of multicast is to be enabled for the multicast session.” Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 14 is met by the rejection of claim 7 of ‘201.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation of the instant claim is same as claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, the claim limitation of “wherein the join request message for the multicast session received from the user equipment comprises information that the user equipment supports the transmission mode for idle/inactive reception of multicast” corresponds to claim limitation of “wherein the join request message for the multicast session received from the user equipment comprises information that the user equipment supports the transmission mode for idle/inactive mode reception of multicast for the multicast session.” Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 16 is met by the rejection of claim 9 of ‘201.
Regarding claim 17, the claim limitation of the instant claim is same as claim 10.
Regarding claim 18, the claim limitation of “wherein the sent indication as to whether the transmission mode for inactive/idle reception of multicast is to be enabled for the multicast session is determined based on at least one of: the received indication from the multicast-broadcast session management function; or the received information from the user equipment that that the user equipment supports the transmission mode for idle/inactive reception of multicast” corresponds to “wherein the sent indication as to whether the transmission mode for inactive mode reception of multicast is to be enabled for the multicast session is determined based on at least one of: the received indication from the multicast-broadcast session management function; or the received information from the user equipment that the user equipment supports the transmission mode for idle/inactive mode reception of multicast for the multicast session.” Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 18 is met by the rejection of claim 11 of ‘201.
Regarding claim 19, the claim limitation of “an indication as to whether the transmission mode for inactive/idle reception of multicast is to be enabled for the multicast session[[:]]; decide, at least partially based on the received indication, whether to apply the transmission mode for inactive/idle reception of multicast for the multicast session in at least one radio cell served by the apparatus; and transmit data of the multicast session in the radio cell using the decided transmission mode” corresponds to claim limitation of “wherein the sent indication as to whether the transmission mode for inactive mode reception of multicast is to be enabled for the multicast session is determined based on at least one of: the received indication from the multicast-broadcast session management function; or the received information from the user equipment that the user equipment supports the transmission mode for idle/inactive mode reception of multicast for the multicast session.” Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 19 is met by the rejection of claim 12 of ‘201.
Regarding claim 20, the claim limitation of “wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least one of: broadcast an indication in the at least one radio cell as to whether the transmission mode for inactive/idle reception of multicast is applied for the multicast session; keep a user equipment that joined the multicast session located within the at least one radio cell in RRC-connected state while the multicast session is active if the transmission mode for inactive/idle reception of multicast is not being applied for the multicast session; and allow a user equipment that joined the multicast session located within the at least one radio cell to transition to RRC-inactive state or RRC-idle state while the multicast session is active if the transmission mode for inactive/idle reception of multicast is being applied for the multicast session” corresponds to claim limitation of “wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least one of: broadcast an indication in the at least one radio cell as to whether the transmission mode for inactive mode reception of multicast is applied for the multicast session; keep the user equipment that joined the multicast session located within the at least one radio cell in a radio resource control (RRC)-connected state while the multicast session is active if the transmission mode for inactive mode reception of multicast is not being applied for the multicast session; and allow a-the user equipment that joined the multicast session located within the at least one radio cell to transition to a RRC-inactive state or a RRC-idle state while the multicast session is active if the transmission mode for inactive mode reception of multicast is being applied for the multicast session.” Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 19 is met by the rejection of claim 12 of ‘201.
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, 3-6 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen et al. (US 20180352305 A1, hereinafter refers as Bowen) in view of Xu et al. (US 2022/0303729 A1, hereinafter refers as Xu).
Regarding claim 1, Bowen discloses an apparatus, in a user equipment, comprising:
at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, in a service announcement for a multicast session, an inactive or idle reception (Fig. 8, el. 830, para. 57, to transmit a message to join a multicast session for those are inactive or idles)
Bowen does not explicitly disclose an inactive or idle reception indicator indicating whether a transmission mode for an inactive or idle reception of multicast is applied for a multicast session[[,]]; and based on the indication, perform procedures to enable reception of the multicast session using the transmission mode for inactive/idle inactive or idle mode reception;
Xu teaches an inactive or idle reception indicator indicating whether a transmission mode for an inactive or idle reception of multicast is applied for a multicast session[[,]]; and based on the indication, perform procedures to enable reception of the multicast session using the transmission mode for inactive/idle inactive or idle mode reception (para. 78, Fig. 5, an indication of active or idle mode in the message which allow the user’s wireless device to accept to join the multicast session);
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bowen in view of Xu to allow a system to save the resource for multicasting session.
Regarding claim 3, Boven in view of Xu discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: send a join request message for the multicast session to a network control element, and receive a join accept message from the network control element, wherein the join accept message comprises the indication as to whether the transmission mode for inactive or idle reception is enabled for the multicast session (Boven, Fig. 8, el. 830, para. 57, Xu, Fig. 5, para. 78).
Regarding claim 4, Boven in view of Xu discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: indicate support for inactive reception of multicast (Boven, Fig. 8, para. 57, el. 803).
Regarding claim 5, Boven in view of Xu discloses wherein the procedures to enable reception of the multicast session using the transmission mode for inactive mode reception comprise information whether the transmission mode for inactive reception of multicast is applied for the multicast session in the cell where the UE is located (Boven, para. 57, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Boven in view of Xu discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: receive data of the multicast session while in radio resource control (RRC)-inactive (Xu, para. 78).
Regarding claim 14, Boven discloses an apparatus, in a network element performing a session management function, comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive a join request message for a multicast session from a user equipment (Fig. 8, el. 803, para. 57),
Boven does not explicitly disclose send a join accept message in response to the join request message, wherein the join accept message comprises an indication as to whether a transmission mode for inactive reception of multicast is to be enabled for the multicast session;
Xu teaches send a join accept message in response to the join request message, wherein the join accept message comprises an indication as to whether a transmission mode for inactive reception of multicast is to be enabled for the multicast session (para. 78, Fig. 5, an indication of active or idle mode in the message which allow the user’s wireless device to accept to join the multicast session).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bowen in view of Xu to allow a system to save the resource for multicasting session.
Regarding claim 15, Boven in view of Xu discloses wherein the join accept message comprises the indication as to whether the transmission mode for inactive reception of multicast is to be enabled in at least one of: an Ni session management container to be transmitted to the user equipment (Xu, Fig. 1, a base station to user’s device); or an N2 session management container to be transmitted to a radio access network node (Xu, Fig. 1, para. 54-55, from base station to the network el. 100).
Regarding claim 16, Boven in view of Xu discloses wherein the join request message for the multicast session received from the user equipment comprises information that the user equipment supports the transmission mode for idle/inactive reception of multicast (Xu, para. 78)
Regarding claim 17, Boven in view of Xu discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: receive an_ indication from a _ multicast-broadcast session management function as to whether the transmission mode for inactive reception of multicast is to be enabled for the multicast session (Boven, Fig. 8, el. 803, para. 57).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang discloses wherein the sent indication as to whether the transmission mode for inactive reception of multicast is to be enabled for the multicast session is determined based on based on one or more of the following: the received indication from the multicast-broadcast session management function; or the received information from the user equipment that the user equipment supports the transmission mode for idle/inactive reception of multicast (Boven, Fig. 8, el. 802, para. 57).
Regarding claim 19, Boven discloses an apparatus, in a network element performing a radio access network node, comprising:
at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least
to receive information about a multicast session comprising an indication as to whether the transmission mode for inactive reception of multicast is to be enabled for the multicast session (Boven, Fig. 8, el. 803, para. 57);
Boven does not explicitly disclose decide, at least partially based on the received indication whether to apply the transmission mode for inactive/idle reception of multicast for the multicast session in at least one radio cell served by the apparatus;
and transmit data of the multicast session in the radio cell using the decided transmission mode;
Xu teaches decide, at least partially based on the received indication whether to apply the transmission mode for inactive/idle reception of multicast for the multicast session in at least one radio cell served by the apparatus; and transmit data of the multicast session in the radio cell using the decided transmission mode (para. 78, Fig. 5, an indication of active or idle mode in the message which allow the user’s wireless device to accept to join the multicast session);
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bowen in view of Xu to allow a system to save the resource for multicasting session.
Regarding claim 20, Boven in view of Xu discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least one of: broadcast an indication in the at least one radio cell as to whether the transmission mode for inactive reception of multicast is applied for the multicast session (Boven, Fig. 8, el. 803);
keep a user equipment that joined the multicast session located within the at least one radio cell in radio resource control (RRC)-connected state while the multicast session is active if the transmission mode for inactive reception of multicast is not being applied for the multicast session (Xu, para. 57);
and allow a user equipment that joined the multicast session located within the at least one radio cell to transition to RRC-inactive state or RRC- idle state while the multicast session is active if the transmission mode for inactive reception of multicast is being applied for the multicast session (Xu, para. 57).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boven in view of Xu in view of Kidiri et al. (US 2021/0194714 A1, hereinafter refers as Kidiri).
Regarding claim 7, Boven in view of Xu discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Boven in view of Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein, when inactive reception of multicast is to be applied for the multicast session, the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: omit feedback concerning reception of the multicast session to the network while the transmission mode for inactive reception of multicast is applied;
Kidiri teaches wherein, when inactive reception of multicast is to be applied for the multicast session, the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: omit feedback concerning reception of the multicast session to the network while the transmission mode for inactive reception of multicast is applied (no uplink feedback during inactive mode);
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the inventio to modify Kidiri to include Boven in view of Xu in order to save the system resource.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CAI Y CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5679. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM -4:30 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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/CAI Y CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
