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 filed 1/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues “The applied references do not disclose at least "providing, to a second base station associated with a second operator, information indicating a unique identifier of a packet at which the broadcast transmission failed," as recited in claim 1…Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action's reliance on the statement in paragraph [0012] of Aydin that " the detection of the malfunction may comprise evaluating the respond messages (by the first or second base station) for lost transmission packets (e.g. missing acknowledgements)" is misplaced. This is because this statement merely teaches that the malfunction may be detected by detecting lost transmission packets, but does not teach that the packet at which the broadcast transmission failed is specifically identified or that such an identification of a lost packet is sent to a second based station, as in claim 1.” See pages 11-12 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Vedantham has been shown to teach the packet at which the broadcast
transmission failed is specifically identified or that such an identification of a lost packet is sent as already described in OA dated 11/28/2025.
The applicant argues “... However, this statement in Aydin only describes that a base station communicates a failure message that indicates a malfunction and then the second based station intercepts the failure message and establishes the new communication link. Importantly, this statement of Aydin describes that a first base station, not the UE, communicates the failure message. Also, importantly, the failure message sent by the first base station in Aydin does not indicate a "unique identifier" of a packet at which the broadcast transmission failed, and instead merely communicates authorization information. In summary, there is no teaching in Aydin of a UE sending any information to a second base station associated with a second operator indicating a failed broadcast transmission, much less sending an indication of a unique identifier of a packet at which the broadcast failed, as recited in claim 1....” see page 12 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagree.
As previously presented, Aydin discloses the first base station 101 may comprise a built-in UE 104 such that it can communicate with the second base station 105 (therefore, it is considered as a UE communicating the failure message indicating a malfunction). For example, the first base station 101 may have a UE class or identifier (IMEI/MAC address) to get guaranteed access and service on the second base station 105. The first base station 101 may be configured to include at least part of the functionality of a user equipment, e.g. such as the user equipment of the LTE or UMTS system (therefore, it is considered as a UE communicating the failure message indicating a malfunction) (see paragraph [0072]).
Vedantham is shown to teach a "unique identifier" of a packet at which the broadcast transmission failed (i.e., a status payload portion including a missing packet identifier including the transmit packet identifier for the missing data packet. See abstract).
The combination of both Aydin and Vedantham teach the UE sending information to a second base station associated with a second operator indicating a failed broadcast transmission and sending an indication of a unique identifier of a packet at which the broadcast failed, as recited in claim 1.
The applicant argues “…However, this "missing packet identifier" of Vedantham is shown to be in a "status control packet" that the TRU (UE) sends to "the sending unit" (the base station that transmitted the packets) to inform the sending unit of a failure. In direct contrast, the UE of claim 1 provides "to a second base station (not the first base station that broadcast the packets) associated with a second operator, information indicating a unique identifier of a packet at which the broadcast transmission failed," SO that then the UE can receive "the second portion of the communication (the remainder of the packets of the broadcast transmission from the first base station) via a unicast transmission from the second base station. In summary, the cited "missing packet identifier" of Vedantham is only sent in a "status control packet" to the same base station that initially transmitted to packets ("the sending unit") and is not shown in any way to be provided to transmitted to a second base station, much less in the context of triggering a second base station to transmit the remainder of the packets of the broadcast transmission via a unicast transmission to the UE.” See page 13 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagree.
As already described previously, Tsai and Aydin has been shown to teach to a second base station (not the first base station that broadcast the packets) associated with a second operator, information indicating a packet at which the broadcast transmission failed," SO that then the UE can receive "the second portion of the communication (the remainder of the packets of the broadcast transmission from the first base station) via a unicast transmission from the second base station. Vedantham has been shown to teach a unique identifier of a packet at which the broadcast transmission failed. Therefore, the combination of Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose providing, to a second base station associated with a second operator, information indicating a unique identifier of a packet at which the broadcast transmission failed; and receiving, without triggering a retransmission of the broadcast transmission, a second portion of the communication via a unicast transmission from the second base station as required in applicant’s claim 1.
For at least the foregoing reasons presented above, the examiner submits that
claim 1 is unpatentable over Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham.
Independent claims 15, 28, and 42 recite similar features as in independent claim
1 discussed above and are therefore also unpatentable over Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham.
Dependent claims 2-14, 16-27 and 29 each depend from one of independent claims 1, 15 and 28 respectively, and are therefore also unpatentable based on their respective dependencies on independent claims 1, 15 and 28.
The office maintains the rejection as set forth below.
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, 7-8, 11-13, 15-17, 20-21, 24-26, 28-29 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (Tsai), U.S. Publication No. 2021/0105641 in view of Aydin et al. (Aydin), U.S. Publication No. 2017/0034765 in further view of Vedantham et al. (Vedantham), U.S. Publication No. 2009/00867760.
Regarding Claims 1 and 28, Tsai discloses a method of wireless
communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (i.e., user equipment 110; see figures 3A & 3B), comprising:
receiving, from a first base station associated with a first operator, a broadcast transmission conveying a first portion of a communication (i.e., the user equipment 110 receives the broadcast service (i.e., the first transmission service) from the first base station 120 through a broadcast bearer 310 (e.g., the MBMS bearer); see paragraph [0047]); and
receiving, without triggering a retransmission of the broadcast transmission (in other words, it is assumed that the measurement report 340 shows that the user equipment 110 should be handed over to a second base station 125, and a coverage of the second base station 125; see paragraph [0050]), a second portion of the communication via a unicast transmission from the second base station (i.e., the unicast service is, for example, forwarded by the service center 150 to the second base station 125 through a user plane gateway 165 (which includes, for example, the P-GW 170 and the S-GW 160) and then provided to the user equipment 110 by the second base station 125 through the unicast bearer 380; see paragraph [0055]).
Tsai fails to disclose providing, to a second base station associated with a second operator, information indicating a unique identifier of a packet at which the broadcast transmission failed.
Aydin discloses providing, to a second base station associated with a second operator (i.e., both first and second base stations 101 and 105 may belong to different or the same operators; see paragraph [0071]), information indicating a packet (i.e., the detection of the malfunction may comprise…the detection may comprise evaluating the respond messages (by the first or second base station) for lost transmission packets (e.g. missing acknowledgements); see paragraph [0012]) at which the broadcast transmission failed (i.e., as soon as the malfunction of the first communication link 111 happens, the first base station 101 may broadcast a failure message indicative of the malfunction. The failure message may indicate the authorization information. The broadcasted failure message may be intercepted by the second base station 105 (i.e. detect the malfunction), and upon intercepting the failure message the second base station 105 may establish the communication link 201B as described above; see paragraph [0094]) See examiner’s response above.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Aydin’s invention with Tsai’s invention to improve the operation of the base stations with the cellular networks as explained in paragraph [0002] of Aydin.
Tsai and Aydin fail to disclose a unique identifier of a packet.
Vedantham discloses a unique identifier of a packet (i.e., a status payload portion including a missing packet identifier including the transmit packet identifier for the missing data packet. See abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Vedantham’s invention with Tsai’s and Aydin’s invention to minimize the overhead in processing the packets as described throughout Vedantham.
Regarding Claims 15 and 42, Tsai discloses a method for wireless
communication performed by a second base station (i.e., the second base station 125; see figure 3A) associated with a second operator (via user plane gateway 165; see figure 3B), comprising:
receiving, from a user equipment (UE) that received a first portion of a communication from a first base station associated with a first operator via a broadcast transmission (i.e., the user equipment 110 receives the broadcast service (i.e., the first transmission service) from the first base station 120 through a broadcast bearer 310 (e.g., the MBMS bearer); see paragraph [0047]); and
providing, without triggering a retransmission of the broadcast transmission, a second portion of the communication via a unicast transmission (i.e., the unicast service is, for example, forwarded by the service center 150 to the second base station 125 through a user plane gateway 165 (which includes, for example, the P-GW 170 and the S-GW 160) and then provided to the user equipment 110 by the second base station 125 through the unicast bearer 380; see paragraph [0055]).
Tsai fails to disclose information indicating a unique identifier of a packet at which the broadcast transmission failed.
Aydin discloses information indicating a packet at which the broadcast transmission failed (i.e., as soon as the malfunction of the first communication link 111 happens, the first base station 101 may broadcast a failure message indicative of the malfunction. The failure message may indicate the authorization information. The broadcasted failure message may be intercepted by the second base station 105 (i.e. detect the malfunction), and upon intercepting the failure message the second base station 105 may establish the communication link 201B as described above; see paragraph [0094]) Also, see examiner’s response above.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Aydin’s invention with Tsai’s invention to improve the operation of the base stations with the cellular networks as explained in paragraph [0002] of Aydin.
Tsai and Aydin fail to disclose a unique identifier of a packet.
Vedantham discloses a unique identifier of a packet (i.e., a status payload portion including a missing packet identifier including the transmit packet identifier for the missing data packet. See abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Vedantham’s invention with Tsai’s and Aydin’s invention to minimize the overhead in processing the packets as described throughout Vedantham.
Regarding Claims 2 and 29, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method
and the apparatus as described above. Tasi further discloses further comprising: detecting a failure of the broadcast transmission; and transmitting, to the second base station, a scheduling request to trigger an initialization of a unicast link on which the unicast transmission is conveyed (i.e., the unicast service is, for example, forwarded by the service center 150 to the second base station 125; see paragraph [0055]).
Regarding Claims 3 and 17, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method
and the apparatus as described above. Tasi further discloses wherein the scheduling request includes information identifying a unique packet identifier associated with the communication (i.e., the first service information also includes the service identification information of the first transmission service, the service center 150 may accordingly make the content of the second transmission service (e.g., the specific live video) identical to the content of the first transmission service (i.e., the specific live video described above); see paragraph [0054]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 20, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method
and the apparatus as described above. Tasi further discloses wherein the communication comprises a plurality of parts divided based at least in part on a communication protocol, and wherein each part includes an identifier (i.e., transmission protocols including global system for mobile communication (GSM), personal handy-phone system (PHS), code division multiple access (CDMA) system, wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) system, worldwide interoperability for microwave access (WiMAX), or Long-Term Evolution (LTE). The user database 513 is used to store the consumption report and the user identification information; see paragraphs [0067] and [0068]).
Regarding Claim 8, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method as
described above. Tasi further discloses further comprising: transmitting information identifying an identifier of a part of the plurality of parts to indicate where the second portion of the communication is to start (i.e., The first service information is, for example, the service identification information of the first transmission service, the consumption type (which indicates that the first transmission service is the broadcast service), the user identification information of the user equipment 110 (which matches the user identification information in the user plane request), the report time and the report location.; see paragraphs [0052] and [0053]).
Regarding Claims 11 and 24, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method
as described above. Tasi further discloses wherein the second portion of the communication is received from the second base station via a broadcast multicast service function (i.e., the second base station 125 supports the broadcast service; see figure 4A).
Regarding Claims 12 and 25, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method
as described above. Tasi further discloses wherein the first operator and the second operator share a connection on a core network (shown in figures 3A & 4A).
Regarding Claim 13, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method as
described above. Tasi further discloses wherein the communication is received from a content delivery network via at least one of the first base station or the second base station (shown in figures 3A & 4A).
Regarding Claim 16, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method as
described above. Tasi further discloses wherein receiving the information indicating comprises: receiving a scheduling request to trigger an initialization of a unicast link on which the unicast transmission is conveyed (i.e., the unicast service is, for example, forwarded by the service center 150 to the second base station 125; see paragraph [0055]). Tasi fails to disclose the packet at which the broadcast transmission failed. Aydin discloses the packet at which the broadcast transmission failed (i.e., as soon as the malfunction of the first communication link 111 happens, the first base station 101 may broadcast a failure message indicative of the malfunction. The failure message may indicate the authorization information. The broadcasted failure message may be intercepted by the second base station 105 (i.e. detect the malfunction), and upon intercepting the failure message the second base station 105 may establish the communication link 201B as described above; see paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Aydin’s invention with Tsai’s invention to improve the operation of the base stations with the cellular networks as explained in paragraph [0002] of Aydin.
Regarding Claim 21, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method as
described above. Tasi further discloses wherein receiving the information indicating comprises: receiving information identifying an identifier of a part of the plurality of parts to indicate where the second portion of the communication is to start (i.e., The first service information is, for example, the service identification information of the first transmission service, the consumption type (which indicates that the first transmission service is the broadcast service), the user identification information of the user equipment 110 (which matches the user identification information in the user plane request), the report time and the report location.; see paragraphs [0052] and [0053]). Tsai fails to disclose the packet at which the broadcast transmission failed. Aydin discloses the packet at which the broadcast transmission failed (i.e., as soon as the malfunction of the first communication link 111 happens, the first base station 101 may broadcast a failure message indicative of the malfunction. The failure message may indicate the authorization information. The broadcasted failure message may be intercepted by the second base station 105 (i.e. detect the malfunction), and upon intercepting the failure message the second base station 105 may establish the communication link 201B as described above; see paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Aydin’s invention with Tsai’s invention to improve the operation of the base stations with the cellular networks as explained in paragraph [0002] of Aydin.
Regarding Claim 26, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method as
described above. Tsai further discloses further comprising: obtaining the communication from a content delivery network (see figure 3A).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham in view of Oyman et al. (Oyman), U.S. Publication No. 2016/0191258.
Regarding Claims 4 and 18, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method
as described above. Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham fail to disclose wherein the second portion of the communication starts from a first missing packet after a failure of the broadcast transmission. Oyman discloses wherein the second portion of the communication starts from a first missing packet after a failure of the broadcast transmission (in other words, If the number of lost media content packets is greater than the defined threshold, then the MBMS client can switch from the broadcast streaming mode to the unicast streaming mode.; see paragraph [0037]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Oyman’s invention with Tsai’s, Aydin’s and Vedantham’s invention to increase reliability and a user level of satisfaction (see paragraph [0033] of Oyman).
Regarding Claims 5 and 19, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method as described above. Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham fail to disclose wherein the second portion of the communication starts from a next packet after a first missing packet after a failure of the broadcast transmission. Oyman discloses wherein the second portion of the communication starts from a next packet after a first missing packet after a failure of the broadcast transmission (in other words, If the MBMS decoder buffer level is below the defined threshold, then the MBMS client can continue operating in the unicast streaming mode.; see paragraph [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Oyman’s invention with Tsai’s, Aydin’s and Vedantham’s invention to increase reliability and a user level of satisfaction (see paragraph [0033] of Oyman).
Regarding Claim 6, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method as described above. Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham fail to disclose further comprising: determining that a measurement of the broadcast transmission does not satisfy a threshold; identifying a failure of the broadcast transmission based at least in part on determining that the measurement of the broadcast transmission does not satisfy the threshold; and wherein receiving the second portion of the communication via the unicast transmission comprises: receiving the second portion of the communication via the unicast transmission based at least in part on identifying the failure of the broadcast transmission. Oyman discloses further comprising: determining that a measurement of the broadcast transmission does not satisfy a threshold; identifying a failure of the broadcast transmission based at least in part on determining that the measurement of the broadcast transmission does not satisfy the threshold; and wherein receiving the second portion of the communication via the unicast transmission comprises: receiving the second portion of the communication via the unicast transmission based at least in part on identifying the failure of the broadcast transmission (i.e., The MBMS client can determine whether an MBMS decoder buffer level is below a defined threshold. If the MBMS decoder buffer level is below the defined threshold, then the MBMS client can switch from the broadcast streaming mode to the unicast streaming mode.; see paragraph [0037]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Oyman’s invention with Tsai’s, Aydin’s and Vedantham’s invention to increase reliability and a user level of satisfaction (see paragraph [0033] of Oyman).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham in view of Hayashi, U.S. Publication No. 2008/0184087.
Regarding Claims 9 and 22, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method
as described above. Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham fail to disclose further comprising: detecting a setup failure for a unicast link on which the unicast transmission is to be conveyed; and receiving the second portion of the communication via the unicast link after the setup failure, wherein the second portion of the communication at least partially overlaps with the first portion of the communication. Hayashi discloses further comprising: detecting a setup failure for a unicast link on which the unicast transmission is to be conveyed; and receiving the second portion of the communication via the unicast link after the setup failure, wherein the second portion of the communication at least partially overlaps with the first portion of the communication (in other words, unicast transmission is carried out between the server 1 and the clients. However, content data transmitted subsequently is transmitted by multicast transmission such that the content data can be simultaneously received by the clients; see paragraph [0078]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Hayashi’s invention with Tsai’s, Aydin’s and Vedantham’s invention for further improving packet transmission efficiency and reliability as described throughout Hayashi.
Regarding Claims 10 and 23, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method
as described above. Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham fail to disclose further comprising: detecting a setup failure for a unicast link on which the unicast transmission is to be conveyed; and receiving the second portion of the communication via the unicast link after the setup failure, wherein the second portion of the communication is disjoint from the first portion of the communication. Hayashi discloses further comprising: detecting a setup failure for a unicast link on which the unicast transmission is to be conveyed; and receiving the second portion of the communication via the unicast link after the setup failure, wherein the second portion of the communication is disjoint from the first portion of the communication (in other words, When the multicast determining unit 472 determines that the packets have been sent by unicast transmission… When an error is detected in a packet, that packet is discarded, and a retransmission request signal for requesting the packet to be retransmitted is sent to the server 1.; see paragraph [0064]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Hayashi’s invention with Tsai’s, Aydin’s and Vedantham’s invention for further improving packet transmission efficiency and reliability as described throughout Hayashi.
Claim(s) 14 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham in view of Malladi et al. (Malladi), U.S. Publication No. 2016/0337817.
Regarding Claims 14 and 27, Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham disclose the method as described above. Tsai, Aydin and Vedantham fail to disclose wherein the UE is subscribed to the second operator and not subscribed to the first operator. Malladi discloses wherein the UE is subscribed to the second operator and not subscribed to the first operator (in other words, The UEs 920 and 970 may include UEs subscribed to the MNO network 908, UEs subscribed to the MNO network 958, UEs subscribed to other MNO networks, and/or UEs that have no cellular subscription to any MNO.; see paragraph [0092] and figure 9). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Malladi’s invention with Tsai’s, Aydin’s and Vedantham’s invention for improving spectral efficiency, lowering costs, and improving services (see paragraph [0006] of Malladi).
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 SHANTELL LAKETA HEIBER whose telephone number is (571)272-0886. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Addy, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-0886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHANTELL L HEIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
April 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights