DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communications filed on October 14, 2025. Claims 1, 5, 12, and 16 have been amended. Claims 3, 4, 14, and 15 have been canceled. Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10-13, and 16-19 are pending in the application.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2021/0250958) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0204248) and Fujishiro et al. (US 2019/0380078).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches a method for multicast/broadcast services (MBS) performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station (BS), a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message that indicates a search space dedicated for the MBS (“communicating component 242 can receive one or more CORESET configurations indicating a set of resources (e.g., RBs) for monitoring for control data communications. In an example, communicating component 242 can receive the one or more CORESET configurations in system information broadcast from the base station 102 (e.g., in one or more SIBs), in RRC signaling, etc. For example, the CORESET can indicate resources over which the search space(s) in the search space configuration are defined. In an example, a specific CORESET can be configured for MBS and/or the CSS/USS associated with the CORESET can be used for monitoring DL grant for MBS with priority” – See [0069]; “For example, scheduling component 342 can transmit the search space configurations and/or other configurations in SIB signals, RRC, MAC CE, etc., as described above. Moreover, as described, the other configurations can include CORESET configurations (which may indicate search spaces), time window configurations, BWP configurations, etc.” – See [0089]; The UE receives RRC signaling from the base station, wherein the signaling indicates a CORESET/search space for MBS); and
monitoring MBS Downlink Control Information (DCI) for MBS-related control information in a control resource set (CORESET) in the search space dedicated for the MBS (“For devices receiving NR MBS, DL grant (e.g., DCI format 1_0 or 1_1 or MBS formats based on these DCI formats)” – See [0025]; “the CSS/USS associated with the CORESET can be used for monitoring DL grant for MBS with priority” – See [0069]; “prioritizing component 254 can determine to monitor for downlink grants for MBS, or to prioritize search spaces and/or corresponding DCI formats, based on determining that the time window is configured for MBS communications and/or for MBS search spaces” – See [0072]; The UE monitors the CSS/USS (search space) in the MBS CORESET for a DL grant (DCI for MBS-related control information)),
wherein
the RRC message further indicates common frequency resources for the MBS shared by a plurality of UEs, the common frequency resources being used for receiving the MBS DCI and MBS data (“communicating component 242 can receive the indication in RRC signaling, media access control (MAC) control element (CE), etc. received from the base station 102 … In another example, the base station 102 can configure, and/or communicating component 242 can receive an indication of a specific BWP for MBS and/or the CORESET” – See [0074]; “CSS/USS for MBS can be introduced in Pdcch_Config or Pdcch_ConfigMulticast including CSS/USS configuration in a dedicated BWP or a MBS BWP” – See [0068]; The RRC message indicates a BWP (common frequency resources), wherein the BWP includes common resources for receiving the MBS DCI (i.e., common search space) and the MBS data), and
the MBS DCI comprises a DCI format with cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI) related to the MBS (“scheduling component 342 can scramble the MBS DCI with a RNTI (e.g., scramble a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) with an RNTI) before transmitting the MBS DCI in the MBS search space” – See [0090]; “The DCI for MBS communications can be of an existing DCI format (e.g., a DCI format defined for unicast communications), which may be modified for MBS communications, and/or may be indicated as related to MBS based on a RNTI used to scramble the DCI, an indicator in the DCI, etc. In an example, communicating component 242 can receive the DCI and can determine that the DCI is for MBS communications based on the RNTI used to scramble the DCI, an indicator in the DCI, etc.” – See [0041]; The CRC of the MBS DCI is scrambled with a RNTI related to the MBS such that the UE can determine that the DCI is for MBS based on the RNTI that was used to scramble the CRC/DCI).
Liu does not explicitly teach that the MBS DCI includes an MBS change notification for indicating whether a new MBS session is started.
However, Zhang teaches that the MBS DCI includes an MBS change notification for indicating whether a new MBS session is started (“As shown in FIG. 7, in some aspects, a change notification 705 may be included in a PDCCH communication 710 (also referred to as DCI)” – See [0093]; “In some aspects, the bitmap may include a bit to indicate whether a new MB service has been added to a service area of the base station 110. In this example, a first value of the bit (for example, 0) may indicate that a new MB service has not been added, and a second value of the bit (for example, 1) may indicate that a new MB service has been added. In example bitmap 720 of FIG. 7, a bitmap value of 1101 indicates that MB control information for MBCCH 1 has changed (represented by a 1 in the first bit in the bitmap), that MB control information for MBCCH 2 has changed (represented by a 1 in the second bit in the bitmap), that MB control information for MBCCH 3 has not changed (represented by a 0 in the third bit in the bitmap), and that a new MB service has been added (represented by a 1 in the fourth bit in the bitmap). The bitmap 720 may be transmitted in the PDCCH communication 710” – See [0096]; The MBS DCI includes an MBS change notification that includes a bit indicating the start of a new MBS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu such that the MBS DCI includes an MBS change notification for indicating whether a new MBS session is started. Motivation for doing so would be to provide reduced power consumption for the UE as compared to monitoring for all MBS control information (for example, on all MBCCHs) for the new MBS session (See Zhang, [0092]).
Liu and Zhang do not explicitly teach that the MBS change notification in the MBS DCI further indicates whether an ongoing MBS session is stopped.
However, Fujishiro teaches an MBS change notification in the MBS DCI that indicates whether an ongoing MBS session is stopped (“The third embodiment is an embodiment for a stop indication in which the eNB 200 notifies the UE 100 of a stop of providing the MBMS service. Such a stop indication may be referred to as “RAN level stop indication”. Specifically, when transmitting the data belonging to the MBMS service to the UE 100 over the SC-MTCH, the eNB 200 notifies the UE 100 of the stop of providing the MBMS service. The stop indication may be included in the control information (DCI) to be transmitted over the (M/N) PDCCH” – See [0152]; The MBS change notification in the MBS DCI indicates that an ongoing service/session is stopped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu-Zhang such that the MBS change notification in the MBS DCI further indicates whether an ongoing MBS session is stopped. Motivation for doing so would be to prevent the UE from wastefully attempting to receive an MBS session that has stopped being provided. Accordingly, unnecessary power consumption is avoided (See Fujishiro, [0153]).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu in view of Zhang and Fujishiro teaches the method of Claim 1. Liu teaches that the RRC message further indicates the CORESET in the search space dedicated for the MBS (“the indication may specify that the search space is for a specific BWP that is dedicated for MBS communications” – See [0065]; The search space is dedicated for MBS communications).
Regarding Claim 5, Liu in view of Zhang and Fujishiro teaches the method of Claim 1. Liu further teaches that the common frequency resources are associated with a bandwidth part (BWP) (“CORESET for MBS can be introduced in Pdcch_Config or Pdcch_ConfigMulticast including CORESET configuration in a dedicated BWP or a MBS BWP” – See [0071]; The resources comprise a BWP).
Regarding Claim 8, Liu in view of Zhang and Fujishiro teaches the method of Claim 1. Zhang further teaches that the RNTI related to the MBS is a group-common RNTI or a cell-RNTI (C-RNTI) (“multicast or broadcast communication on the MBTCH 302 may be addressed to a group of UEs using a group radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI)” – See [0058]; The RNTI for the MBS data is a group RNTI).
Claim 12 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 5.
Claim 17 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 8.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2021/0250958) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0204248) and Fujishiro et al. (US 2019/0380078) and further in view of Lei et al. (US 2021/0105808).
Regarding Claim 10, Liu in view of Zhang and Fujishiro teaches the method of Claim 8. Liu, Zhang, and Fujishiro do not explicitly teach receiving a group-common Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) scheduled by the MBS DCI, wherein the group-common PDSCH is scrambled by the group-common RNTI associated with the MBS DCI.
However, Lei teaches receiving a group-common Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) scheduled by the MBS DCI, wherein the group-common PDSCH is scrambled by the group-common RNTI associated with the MBS DCI (“the base station 105 may multicast the KM PDSCHs 210 to KM subsets of UEs 115 (for example, including UE 115-a, UE 115-b, and UE 115-c). Each PDSCH may be scrambled with a unique G-RNTI, which, as described above, is broadcast or multicast (for example, in the group-common DCI) to a subset of UEs expecting the same downlink or uplink resource configurations” – See [0080]; A set of UEs receives a group-common PDSCH, wherein the PDSCH is scrambled by a G-RNTI (group-common RNTI) associated with a multicast (MBS) DCI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include receiving a group-common Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) scheduled by the MBS DCI, wherein the group-common PDSCH is scrambled by the group-common RNTI associated with the MBS DCI. Motivation for doing so would be to enable the base station to target a specific subset of UEs expecting the same resource configurations (See Lei, [0080] and [0091]).
Claim 18 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 10.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2021/0250958) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0204248) and Fujishiro et al. (US 2019/0380078) and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0250918, hereinafter Liu ‘918).
Regarding Claim 11, Liu in view of Zhang and Fujishiro teaches the method of Claim 1. Liu, Zhang, and Fujishiro do not explicitly teach that the MBS DCI includes at least one of the following fields: a bandwidth part (BWP) ID related to the MBS; an MBS repetition period; a frequency bitmap associated with resource allocation for different MBS IDs in frequency domain; and a timing bitmap associated with resource allocation for different MBS IDs in time domain.
However, Liu ‘918 teaches that the MBS DCI includes a bandwidth part (BWP) ID related to the MBS; an MBS repetition period; a frequency bitmap associated with resource allocation for different MBS IDs in frequency domain; and a timing bitmap associated with resource allocation for different MBS IDs in time domain (“In DCI, a reserved bit can be used, or repurposed, as a new field for MB communications, such as a flag to differentiate paging and MB data for an early indication of MB data. The UEs supporting MB can accordingly determine that the DCI is for MB earlier before detecting the paging message in PDSCH. In one example, reserved bits of this format can be used to convey MB information, such as one or more new fields for MB communications that may include a MB indication to indicate whether the DCI is of the MB format, a repetition number, as MB communications can be transmitted multiple times to reach cell edge UEs, etc. In other examples, without necessarily modifying the bit structure, fields in the existing DCI format can be used to indicate MB information, such as frequency domain resource assignment and time domain resource assignment fields used to indicate resource blocks (RBs) or other resource information in BWP for MB (only” – See [0080]; The DCI includes an indication of a BWP for MBS, a bitmap with frequency domain resource assignments for the MBS, a bitmap with time domain resource assignments for the MBS, and an MBS repetition period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu such that the MBS DCI includes at least one of the following fields: a bandwidth part (BWP) ID related to the MBS; an MBS repetition period; a frequency bitmap associated with resource allocation for different MBS IDs in frequency domain; and a timing bitmap associated with resource allocation for different MBS IDs in time domain. Motivation for doing so would be to provide the UE with updated MBS service information using a modified version of preexisting DCI formats, which can reduce the complexity of determining possible DCI formats by the UE. Furthermore, unnecessary fields can be removed to reduce the size of the DCI (See Liu ‘918, [0027] and [0087]).
Claim 19 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that Liu, Zhang, and Fujishiro do not teach “the MBS DCI includes an MBS change notification for indicating whether a new MBS session is started and whether an ongoing MBS session is stopped,” as recited in independent claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues “As demonstrated above, paragraph [0093] of Zhang describes a change notification carried in a PDCCH communication, used to notify a UE of a change to MB control information. Paragraph [0096] of Zhang describes that the bitmap for the change notification may include a bit to indicate whether a new MB service has been added to a service area of the base station. On the other hand, Fujishiro describes a stop indication included in DCI for indicating that the MBMS service has to be stopped.
While Fujishiro describes the ‘stop’ part using DCI and Zhang describes the ‘start’ part using a bitmap, the two prior arts do not disclose a single MBS DCI that contains both notifications simultaneously. The combination of Fujishiro and Zhang still fails to disclose or suggest the claimed feature that ‘the MBS DCI includes an MBS change notification for indicating whether a new MBS session is started and whether an ongoing MBS session is stopped.’
Specifically, Fujishiro merely describes a stop indication, referred to as a ‘RAN level stop indication,’ in which the eNB notifies the UE to stop providing an MBMS service. Fujishiro is limited to notifying a termination of service, but it does not teach or suggest a change notification that indicates both the starting of a new session and the stopping of an ongoing session within the same DCI.
Zhang, on the other hand, describes a change notification carried in PDCCH, where the bitmap may include a bit indicating whether a new MB service has been added. Zhang therefore only addresses service addition, without teaching or suggesting any indication of session stoppage.
Accordingly, even if a person having ordinary skill in the art were to combine the teachings of Fujishiro and Zhang, the combination, at best, provides a mechanism for notifying service stoppage (e.g., from Fujishiro) and a mechanism for notifying service addition (e.g., from Zhang), but these notifications are taught as separate concepts. Neither reference discloses nor suggests unifying these notifications into a single MBS change notification included in MBS DCI that simultaneously indicates both the start of a new session and the stop of an ongoing session.
The claimed feature is a specific combination of two indicators within a single MBS DCI. The combination of Fujishiro and Zhang provides separate disclosures for the ‘start’ and ‘stop’ functionalities. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the cited paragraphs to combine these two separate functionalities into a single DCI format. Therefore, the combination of these two prior arts does not disclose the claimed feature. The claimed feature therefore presents a distinct and non-obvious improvement by integrating both types of notifications into a single, consistent signaling mechanism within the MBS DCI, thereby improving efficiency and reliability of session control at the UE.”
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is well known in the art that downlink control information (DCI) is frequently modified/customized to carry many different types of information other than the normal contents specified in the various 3GPP standards. Repurposing various DCI fields or adding new ones is useful for the inclusion of new functionality, increasing efficiency, and so on. The 103 rejection based on incorporating the DCI contents from Zhang and Fujishiro into Liu is a simple and straightforward modification that involves including: i) information indicating whether a new MBS session is started and ii) information indicating whether an ongoing MBS session is stopped.
Although the claim specifies that these two indications are part of an MBS change notification included in MBS DCI, the Examiner notes that the claim does not recite any special formatting or characteristics of the indications/change notification, other than the fact that they are included in an MBS DCI. The fact that the “information indicating whether a new MBS session is started and whether an ongoing MBS session is stopped” are said to be part of an “MBS change notification” does not structurally modify the MBS DCI in any way. According to the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation “the MBS DCI includes an MBS change notification for indicating whether a new MBS session is started and whether an ongoing MBS session is stopped” only requires that an MBS DCI include information indicating whether a new MBS session is started and whether an ongoing MBS session is stopped. The modified Liu in view of Zhang and Fujishiro is considered to teach this interpretation based Zhang’s teaching of an indication of whether a new MBS session is started and Fujishiro’s teaching of an indication of whether an ongoing MBS session is stopped.
On pages 10-12 of the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that Liu does not teach “the RRC message further indicates common frequency resources for the MBS shared by a plurality of UEs, the common frequency resources being used for receiving the MBS DCI and MBS data,” as recited in independent claim 1.
In response to the amended limitations, the Examiner has cited additional passages from Liu. In paragraph [0074], Liu discloses “communicating component 242 can receive the indication in RRC signaling, media access control (MAC) control element (CE), etc. received from the base station 102 … In another example, the base station 102 can configure, and/or communicating component 242 can receive an indication of a specific BWP for MBS and/or the CORESET.” In paragraph [0068], Liu further discloses “CSS/USS for MBS can be introduced in Pdcch_Config or Pdcch_ConfigMulticast including CSS/USS configuration in a dedicated BWP or a MBS BWP.” Thus, a common search space (CSS), which provides common resources on which a plurality of UEs monitor for DCI, is in an MBS BWP (frequency resources). Accordingly, the common frequency resources used for receiving the DCI are on a same BWP as that which is used for MBS data.
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 Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478