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 .
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 13 and 24 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.
Claims 13 and 24 recite the limitation the first network node transmits the MRB tunnel context suspension request. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 10 and 25 state this message is transmit by the second network node, not the first network node. The Examiner will examine the claims as if this message is sent by the second network node and received by the first network node.
Appropriate correction required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. “Wu” US 2026/0032777 in view of R3-183064 TP for CPUP_Split by LG electronics, hereinafter “LG” published 05/2018.
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a first network node (CU-CP 172A) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to cause the first network node to (Figure 1A and Paragraph 43 teaches processors and memory):
receive, from a second network node (CU-UP 172B), a first multicast/broadcast service (MBS) data activity message that indicates that no downlink data is available for transmission in an active MBS session (a bearer context inactivity notification (540 of Figure 5D; Paragraph 168. Paragraph 166 discusses this is for MBS sessions is received); and
transmit, to a third network node (DU 174) and based at least in part on receiving the first MBS data activity message, a multicast/broadcast radio bearer (MRB) context suspension indication that indicates that an MRB context associated with the active MBS session is to be suspended (based on the received inactivity notification (540), node 172A sends a context modification message (548) (i.e. suspension indication) to DU 174; Paragraphs 170-171, see also Figure 5D. The inactivity/suspension is associated with MRB; Paragraphs 172 and 174).
Wu does not expressly disclose the CU-CP, CU-UP, and DU are three distinct, separate network nodes; however, LG teaches that each of the DU, CU-CP, and CU-CP can be associated with a separate base station (See Figures 2, 4 and 8).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Wu to include the nodes as three separate entities as taught by LG.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that state transitions from connected to inactive (suspension states) can be transmit amongst a plurality of cells/base stations as taught by LG; Section 2.1.
Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches the first node is a CU-CP node (172A Figure 5D),
the second node is a central unit-user plane node (CU-UP 172B, Figure 5D); and
The third network node is a distributed unit network node (DU 174 Figure 5D).
Regarding claim 3, Wu teaches the first node transmits to the second node, a MRB tunnel context suspension request to request a tunnel context associated with the active MBS be suspended (Figure 4 shows MRB tunnels between the nodes. Further, CU-CP sends a bearer context modification (544) to the CU-UP to suspend transmissions; Paragraph 170. Paragraph 71 teaches various tunnels and F1-U traffic for MRBs).
Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches the tunnel context is F1-U (paragraphs 55, 71 and 109 disclose F1-U interfaces).
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches the first node transmits the MRB tunnel context suspension request via MRB context modification request message (Figure 4 shows MRB tunnels between the nodes. Further, CU-CP sends a bearer context modification (544) to the CU-UP to suspend transmissions).
Regarding claim 6, Wu teaches receiving, from the second node, a second MBS data activity message that indicates DL data is available for transmission in the active MBS session (CU-CP receives a bearer context setup response (i.e. data activity indicating data available); 711 Figure 7A; Paragraph 208, see also Figure 6A).; and
Transmit, to the third node based on receiving the second MBS activity message, an MRB context resumption indication indicating the MRB associated with the active MBS session is to be resumed (after receiving message 711, CU-CP sends a RRC resume message to the DU 174 (716 of Figure 7A; Paragraph 208, see also Figure 6A).
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches the first node transmits to the second node a MRB tunnel context resumption request to request the active MBS session be resumed (the CU-CP sends a bearer context setup request to the CU-UP; 710 of Figure 7A and Paragraph 208, see also Figure 6A. This is viewed as a resumption request because based on the response from the CU-UP, the CU-CP can confirm the resumption as shown in message 716).
Regarding claim 8, Wu teaches the tunnel context is an F1-U interface tunnel (paragraphs 55, 71 and 109 disclose F1-U interfaces).
Regarding claim 9, Wu teaches the MRB tunnel context resumption request is a MRB context modification request message (Paragraph 119 teaches the bearer context setup request messages are bearer context modification request messages).
Regarding claim 10, Wu teaches a first network node (CU-UP 172B) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors (Figure 1A and Paragraph 43 teaches processors and memory) individually or collectively configured to cause the first network node to:
transmit, to a second network node (CU-CP 172A), a first multicast/broadcast service (MBS) data activity message that indicates that no downlink data is available for transmission in an active MBS session (a bearer context inactivity notification (540 of Figure 5D; Paragraph 168. Paragraph 166 discusses this is for MBS sessions) is transmit); and
receive, from the second network node and based at least in part on transmitting the first MBS data activity message, a multicast/broadcast radio bearer (MRB) tunnel context suspension request that requests that a tunnel context associated with the active MBS session be suspended (Figure 4 shows MRB tunnels between the nodes. Further, CU-CP sends a bearer context modification (544) to the CU-UP to suspend transmissions; Paragraph 170. Paragraph 71 teaches various tunnels and F1-U traffic for MRBs).
Wu does not expressly disclose the CU-CP, CU-UP, and DU are distinct, separate network nodes; however, LG teaches that each of the DU, CU-CP, and CU-CP can be associated with a separate base station (See Figures 2, 4 and 8).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Wu to include the nodes as separate entities as taught by LG.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that state transitions from connected to inactive (suspension states) can be transmit amongst a plurality of cells/base stations as taught by LG; Section 2.1.
Regarding claim 11, Wu teaches the first node is a central unit-user plane node (CU-UP 172B, Figure 5D); and
The second network node is a CU-CP network node (CU-CP 172A Figure 5D).
Regarding claim 12, Wu teaches the tunnel context is F1-U (paragraphs 55, 71 and 109 disclose F1-U interfaces).
Regarding claim 13, Wu teaches transmitting the MRB context suspension request via an MRB context modification request message (Figure 4 shows MRB tunnels between the nodes. Further, CU-CP sends a bearer context modification (544) to the CU-UP to suspend transmissions).
Regarding claim 14, Wu teaches transmit, to the second node, a second MBS data activity message that indicates data is available for transmission in the active MBS session (CU-CP receives a bearer context setup response (i.e. data activity indicating data available) form the CU-IP; 711 Figure 7A; Paragraph 208, see also Figure 6A).
Regarding claim 15, Wu teaches the second node receives from the first node a MRB tunnel context resumption request to request the active MBS session be resumed (the CU-CP sends a bearer context setup request to the CU-UP; 710 of Figure 7A and Paragraph 208, see also Figure 6A. This is viewed as a resumption request because based on the response from the CU-UP, the CU-CP can confirm the resumption as shown in message 716).
Regarding claim 16, Wu teaches the MRB tunnel context resumption request is a MRB context modification request message (Paragraph 119 teaches the bearer context setup request messages are bearer context modification request messages).
Regarding claim 17, Wu teaches a method performed by a first network node (CU-CP 172A) for wireless communication, comprising:
receive, from a second network node (CU-UP 172B), a first multicast/broadcast service (MBS) data activity message that indicates that no downlink data is available for transmission in an active MBS session (a bearer context inactivity notification (540 of Figure 5D; Paragraph 168. Paragraph 166 discusses this is for MBS sessions is received); and
transmit, to a third network node (DU 174) and based at least in part on receiving the first MBS data activity message, a multicast/broadcast radio bearer (MRB) context suspension indication that indicates that an MRB context associated with the active MBS session is to be suspended (based on the received inactivity notification (540), node 172A sends a context modification message (548) (i.e. suspension indication) to DU 174; Paragraphs 170-171, see also Figure 5D. The inactivity/suspension is associated with MRB; Paragraphs 172 and 174).
Wu does not expressly disclose the CU-CP, CU-UP, and DU are three distinct, separate network nodes; however, LG teaches that each of the DU, CU-CP, and CU-CP can be associated with a separate base station (See Figures 2, 4 and 8).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Wu to include the nodes as three separate entities as taught by LG.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that state transitions from connected to inactive (suspension states) can be transmit amongst a plurality of cells/base stations as taught by LG; Section 2.1.
Regarding claim 18, Wu teaches the first network node is a CU-CP node (172A Figure 5D),
the second node is a central unit-user plane node (CU-UP 172B, Figure 5D); and
The third network node is a distributed unit network node (DU 174 Figure 5D).
Regarding claim 19, Wu teaches transmitting, to the second node, a MRB tunnel context suspension request to request a tunnel context associated with the active MBS be suspended (Figure 4 shows MRB tunnels between the nodes. Further, CU-CP sends a bearer context modification (544) to the CU-UP to suspend transmissions; Paragraph 170. Paragraph 71 teaches various tunnels and F1-U traffic for MRBs).
Regarding claim 20, Wu teaches the tunnel context is F1-U (paragraphs 55, 71 and 109 disclose F1-U interfaces).
Regarding claim 21, Wu teaches the first node transmits the MRB tunnel context suspension request via MRB context modification request message (Figure 4 shows MRB tunnels between the nodes. Further, CU-CP sends a bearer context modification (544) to the CU-UP to suspend transmissions).
Regarding claim 22, Wu teaches receiving, from the second node, a second MBS data activity message that indicates DL data is available for transmission in the active MBS session (CU-CP receives a bearer context setup response (i.e. data activity indicating data available); 711 Figure 7A; Paragraph 208, see also Figure 6A).; and
Transmit, to the third node based on receiving the second MBS activity message, an MRB context resumption indication indicating the MRB associated with the active MBS session is to be resumed (after receiving message 711, CU-CP sends a RRC resume message to the DU 174 (716 of Figure 7A; Paragraph 208, see also Figure 6A).
Regarding claim 23, Wu teaches the first node transmits to the second node a MRB tunnel context resumption request to request the active MBS session be resumed (the CU-CP sends a bearer context setup request to the CU-UP; 710 of Figure 7A and Paragraph 208, see also Figure 6A. This is viewed as a resumption request because based on the response from the CU-UP, the CU-CP can confirm the resumption as shown in message 716).
Regarding claim 24, Wu teaches the MRB tunnel context resumption request is a MRB context modification request message (Paragraph 119 teaches the bearer context setup request messages are bearer context modification request messages).
Regarding claim 25, Wu teaches a method performed by a first network node (CU-UP 172B) comprising:
transmit, to a second network node (CU-CP 172A), a first multicast/broadcast service (MBS) data activity message that indicates that no downlink data is available for transmission in an active MBS session (a bearer context inactivity notification (540 of Figure 5D; Paragraph 168. Paragraph 166 discusses this is for MBS sessions) is transmit); and
receive, from the second network node and based at least in part on transmitting the first MBS data activity message, a multicast/broadcast radio bearer (MRB) tunnel context suspension request that requests that a tunnel context associated with the active MBS session be suspended (Figure 4 shows MRB tunnels between the nodes. Further, CU-CP sends a bearer context modification (544) to the CU-UP to suspend transmissions; Paragraph 170. Paragraph 71 teaches various tunnels and F1-U traffic for MRBs).
Wu does not expressly disclose the CU-CP, CU-UP, and DU are distinct, separate network nodes; however, LG teaches that each of the DU, CU-CP, and CU-CP can be associated with a separate base station (See Figures 2, 4 and 8).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Wu to include the nodes as separate entities as taught by LG.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that state transitions from connected to inactive (suspension states) can be transmit amongst a plurality of cells/base stations as taught by LG; Section 2.1.
Regarding claim 26, Wu teaches the first node is a central unit-user plane node (CU-UP 172B, Figure 5D); and
The second network node is a CU-CP network node (CU-CP 172A Figure 5D).
Regarding claim 27, Wu teaches transmitting the MRB context suspension request via an MRB context modification request message (Figure 4 shows MRB tunnels between the nodes. Further, CU-CP sends a bearer context modification (544) to the CU-UP to suspend transmissions).
Regarding claim 28, Wu teaches transmit, to the second node, a second MBS data activity message that indicates data is available for transmission in the active MBS session (CU-CP receives a bearer context setup response (i.e. data activity indicating data available) form the CU-IP; 711 Figure 7A; Paragraph 208, see also Figure 6A).
Regarding claim 29, Wu teaches receiving, from the second network node a MRB tunnel context resumption request to request the active MBS session be resumed (the CU-CP sends a bearer context setup request to the CU-UP; 710 of Figure 7A and Paragraph 208, see also Figure 6A. This is viewed as a resumption request because based on the response from the CU-UP, the CU-CP can confirm the resumption as shown in message 716).
Regarding claim 30, Wu teaches the MRB tunnel context resumption request is a MRB context modification request message (Paragraph 119 teaches the bearer context setup request messages are bearer context modification request messages).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. US 2025/0098028 teaches a DU and CU engaging in MBS session communications.
Teyeb et al. US 2023/0292185 teaches CU-UP, CU-CUP and DU in active communication using F1 interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights