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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 1/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19, 27, and 28 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 1/26/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 19-34 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 28 has overcome the objection to claim 28 previously set forth in the Final Action mailed on 11/24/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 19 and 27 (pages 6-9) in a reply filed 1/26/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Godin et al. (US 2023/0354106 A1, hereinafter Godin).
Regarding claim 19:
Godin teaches a method for multicast transmission by a centralized unit-control plane (CU- CP) of a base station (see, Godin: Fig. 5, CU-CP), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a distributed unit (DU) of the base station (see, Godin: Fig. 5, DU), a first message for requesting establishment of a multicast transmission (see, Godin: Fig. 5, Step 503: Modify UE context), wherein the first message includes first configuration information for a point-to-point multicast transmission radio channel and second configuration information for a point-to-multipoint multicast transmission radio channel (see, Godin: Fig. 5, Step 503 and para. [0056], “The control plane entity of the central unit transmits, in message 503, …, to a distributed unit of the one or more distributed units, a request for creating and/or modifying a context of the terminal device by setting up a first RLC leg for a first radio bearer for point-to-point transmissions (i.e., unicast transmissions) to the terminal device and a second radio link control leg for a second radio bearer for point-to-multipoint transmissions (i.e., multicast transmissions) to the terminal device.”); and
receiving, from the DU, a second message in response to the first message (see, Godin: Fig. 5, Step 505: Response; and para. [0059], “Consequently or subsequently, the distributed unit transmits, in message 505, a response to the request back to the control plane entity of the central unit.”), and
receiving, from the DU, a channel mode notification message indicating a multicast transmission mode determined by the DU (see, Godin: Fig. 5, Step 515: Decision to switch active RLC leg; Step 516: Switch; and para. [0069], “the distributed unit determines, in block 515, that improved efficiency for the terminal device according to the pre-defined criteria is enabled if the second RLC leg (i.e., the currently inactive RLC leg) is set as active (and the first RLC leg is set as inactive). Consequently, the distributed unit transmits, in message 516, information on the switching decision to the control plane entity of the central unit for implementing the switching in the central unit (over the F1-C interface).”) based on cell signal quality (e.g., channel state information measurements and/or HARQ feedback associated with the first RCL leg) and a number of user equipments (UEs) receiving the multicast transmission (e.g., the number of terminal devices receiving multicast transmissions identified by the substantially same identifier for the multicast session) (see, Godin: para. [0067], “The distributed unit receives the channel state information and/or HARQ feedback associated with the first RLC leg from the terminal device. Based on the channel state information and/or the HARQ feedback for at least said terminal device, the distributed unit determines, in block 515 whether improved efficiency for the terminal device according to pre-defined criteria is enabled if the second RLC legs (i.e., the currently inactive RLC leg) is set as active (and the first RLC leg is set as inactive). In other words, it is evaluated in block 515 whether a switch from point-to-point transmission to point-to-multipoint transmission should be carried out for the terminal device. ... The determining in block 515 may consider, for example, the number of terminal devices receiving multicast transmissions identified by the substantially same identifier for the multicast session (e.g., by the substantially same Mcast ID). The pre-defined criteria may comprise one or more pre-defined (upper or lower) limits or thresholds for an efficiency metric (or specifically a resource efficiency metric) and/or for the number of terminal devices in the substantially same multicast group as the terminal device (determined based on the identifier for the multicast session).”),
wherein the first configuration information and the second configuration information share a common identity (e.g., a single F1-U shared tunnel identity, TEID) to associate the point-to-point multicast transmission radio channel with the point-to-multipoint multicast transmission radio channel, and wherein the common identity is for mapping of the determined multicast transmission mode to the first configuration information and the second configuration information (see, Godin: para. [0077], “The initial actions 601-612 illustrated in FIG. 6 relating to the configuration of first and second RLC legs for the terminal device and the distributed access node may be carried out for the most part as described in relation to respective elements 501-512 of FIG. 5. As mentioned above, in this case the first and second RLC legs are defined as depicted in FIG. 4, that is, a first RLC leg for point-to-point transmissions (i.e., unicast) is associated with a SC-MRB and a C-RNTI and a second RLC leg for point-to-multipoint transmissions (i.e., multicast) is associated with the substantially same SC-MRB and a G-RNTI. Thus, one radio bearer is defined for the two RLC legs (as opposed to two in FIG. 5). Consequently, a single shared (downlink) tunnel (that is, a single F1-U shared tunnel) may be set up for the first and second RLC legs. The request for creating and/or modifying the context of the terminal device, that is, message 603, may, thus, comprise the identifier for the multicast session (i.e., Mcast ID) and information on the first RLC leg (i.e., the unicast RLC leg), the second RLC leg (i.e., the multicast RLC leg) and a shared tunnel associated with the first and second RLC legs to be set up.”).
Regarding claim 20:
As discussed above, Godin teaches all limitations in claim 19.
Godin further teaches wherein transmitting, to a centralized unit-user plane (CU-UP) (see, Godin: Fig. 6, CU-UP), a third message for requesting establishment of the multicast transmission (see, Godin: Fig. 6, Step 609: Create context; para. [0077], “The initial actions 601-612 illustrated in FIG. 6 relating to the configuration of first and second RLC legs for the terminal device and the distributed access node may be carried out for the most part as described in relation to respective elements 501-512 of FIG. 5. As mentioned above, in this case the first and second RLC legs are defined as depicted in FIG. 4, that is, a first RLC leg for point-to-point transmissions (i.e., unicast) is associated with a SC-MRB and a C-RNTI and a second RLC leg for point-to-multipoint transmissions (i.e., multicast) is associated with the substantially same SC-MRB and a G-RNTI. Thus, one radio bearer is defined for the two RLC legs (as opposed to two in FIG. 5). Consequently, a single shared (downlink) tunnel (that is, a single F1-U shared tunnel) may be set up for the first and second RLC legs.”); and
receiving, from the CU-UP, a fourth message in response to the third message (see, Godin: Fig. 6, Step 611: Response).
Regarding claim 21:
As discussed above, Godin teaches all limitations in claim 20.
Godin further teaches wherein the third message includes third configuration information for the point-to-point multicast transmission radio channel and fourth configuration information for the point-to-multipoint multicast transmission radio channel associated by the common identity (see, Godin: Fig. 6, Step 609: Create context; para. [0077], “The initial actions 601-612 illustrated in FIG. 6 relating to the configuration of first and second RLC legs for the terminal device and the distributed access node may be carried out for the most part as described in relation to respective elements 501-512 of FIG. 5. As mentioned above, in this case the first and second RLC legs are defined as depicted in FIG. 4, that is, a first RLC leg for point-to-point transmissions (i.e., unicast) is associated with a SC-MRB and a C-RNTI and a second RLC leg for point-to-multipoint transmissions (i.e., multicast) is associated with the substantially same SC-MRB and a G-RNTI. Thus, one radio bearer is defined for the two RLC legs (as opposed to two in FIG. 5). Consequently, a single shared (downlink) tunnel (that is, a single F1-U shared tunnel) may be set up for the first and second RLC legs. … the context creation message 609 comprises … the shared tunnel (e.g., the TEID).”).
Regarding claim 22:
As discussed above, Godin teaches all limitations in claim 20.
Godin further teaches wherein the fourth message includes information defining a downlink data receiving tunnel assigned by the CU-UP (see, Godin: Fig. 6, Step 611; para. [0077], “The initial actions 601-612 illustrated in FIG. 6 relating to the configuration of first and second RLC legs for the terminal device and the distributed access node may be carried out for the most part as described in relation to respective elements 501-512 of FIG. 5.”; and para. [0060], “The user plane entity of the central unit sets up, in block 510, the first and second radio bearers (i.e., the first and second RLC legs) and the first and second tunnels for the user plane entity based on the context creation message and transmits, in message 511, a response to the context creation message back to the control plane entity of the central unit.”).
Regarding claim 23:
As discussed above, Godin teaches all limitations in claim 19.
Godin further teaches wherein the first configuration information includes at least one of a data radio bearer (DRB) identity, quality of service (QoS) flow information, a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) configuration, or a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) configuration (see, Godin: para. [0056], “The control plane entity of the central unit transmits, in message 503, …, to a distributed unit of the one or more distributed units, a request for creating and/or modifying a context of the terminal device by setting up a first RLC leg for a first radio bearer for point-to-point transmissions (i.e., unicast transmissions) to the terminal device and a second radio link control leg for a second radio bearer for point-to-multipoint transmissions (i.e., multicast transmissions) to the terminal device. The request may be specifically a F1 UE Context Modification Request. The first and second RLC legs (equally called unicast and multicast RLC legs) may be identified or characterized by a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) and group radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI). In this example, the first radio bearer is specifically a unicast data radio bearer (unicast DRB) and the second radio bearer is a single cell multicast radio bearer (SC-MRB).”; Also, see para. [0037-0040]).
Regarding claim 24:
As discussed above, Godin teaches all limitations in claim 19.
Godin further teaches wherein the second configuration information includes at least one of a multicast broadcast service (MBS) radio bearer (MRB) identity, an MBS identity, or a radio link control (RLC) mode configuration (see, Godin: para. [0056], “The control plane entity of the central unit transmits, in message 503, …, to a distributed unit of the one or more distributed units, a request for creating and/or modifying a context of the terminal device by setting up a first RLC leg for a first radio bearer for point-to-point transmissions (i.e., unicast transmissions) to the terminal device and a second radio link control leg for a second radio bearer for point-to-multipoint transmissions (i.e., multicast transmissions) to the terminal device. The request may be specifically a F1 UE Context Modification Request. The first and second RLC legs (equally called unicast and multicast RLC legs) may be identified or characterized by a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) and group radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI). In this example, the first radio bearer is specifically a unicast data radio bearer (unicast DRB) and the second radio bearer is a single cell multicast radio bearer (SC-MRB).”; Also, see para. [0037-0040]).
Regarding claim 25:
As discussed above, Godin teaches all limitations in claim 19.
Godin further teaches wherein the second message includes information defining a downlink data receiving tunnel assigned by the DU (e.g., TEIDs) (see, Godin: para. [0059], “The distributed unit sets up (or configures), in block 504, based on the received request, the first and second RLC legs and the first and second tunnels between the distributed unit and the central unit for the first and second RLC legs (i.e., for the unicast DRB and the SC-MRB), respectively. Said first and second tunnels may be specifically F1-U tunnels. This setup process may comprise generating identification information on the first and second tunnels. Said identification information on the first and second tunnels may specifically correspond to first and second tunnel end-point identifiers (TEIDs) for the first and second tunnels defined for the first and second RLC legs (i.e., for the unicast DRB and the SC-MRB). Consequently or subsequently, the distributed unit transmits, in message 505, a response to the request back to the control plane entity of the central unit. Said response may comprise at least said first and second TEIDs. Moreover, said response may comprise the identifier for the multicast session (i.e., the Mcast ID). The response may be specifically a F1 UE Context Modification Response.”).
Regarding claim 26:
As discussed above, Godin teaches all limitations in claim 19.
Godin further teaches wherein the point-to-point multicast transmission radio channel and the point-to-multipoint multicast transmission radio channel share at least one of a common service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) entity or a common packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity (see, Godin: Fig. 4 and para. [0043], “Referring to FIG. 4, the second L2 protocol architecture alternative according to embodiments uses a SC-MRB for both point-to-point and point-to-multipoint transmissions in a split bearer manner, i.e., PDCP PDUs may be transmitted either to a point-to-point branch or leg (defined by elements 404-406) of the SC-MRB or point-to-multipoint branch (defined by elements 414-416) of the SC-MRB. At least one leg of SC-MRB has its own RLC entities 404, 414. Said legs may be thus called RLC legs, as mentioned above. In other words, the element 403 illustrating the location in the protocol stack where data replication and forwarding (i.e., switching) takes place directly follows the PDCP 402 in the stack (as opposed to directly following the SDAP 301 as in FIG. 3). Consequently, the switching 403 between point-to-point and point-to-multipoint transmissions may occur, in this case, solely in the DU(s) of a distributed access node, as will be described in more detail below. This placement provides the benefit that one shared F1-U tunnel may be used for handling the SC-MRB associated with multiple RLC legs whereas, in the case of the first L2 protocol architecture alternative of FIG. 3, a separate F1-U tunnel may be needed for each radio bearer (i.e., for each of at least one DRB and for each of at least one SC-MRB).”).
Regarding claim 27:
Claim 27 is directed towards a centralized unit-control plane (CU-CP) of a base station (see, Godin: Fig. 5, CU-CP) for multicast transmission, the CU-CP comprising: a transceiver (see, Godin: Fig. 9, CU 901, Tx/Rx 910; para. [0104]); and a processor (see, Godin: Fig. 9, CU 901, Communication control circuitry 920; para. [0101]) configured to: perform the method of claim 19. Therefore, claim 27 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 28:
Claim 28 is directed towards the CU-CP of claim 27 that is further limited to similar features to claim 20. Therefore, claim 28 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 20 above.
Regarding claim 29:
Claim 29 is directed towards the CU-CP of claim 28 that is further limited to similar features to claim 21. Therefore, claim 29 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 30:
Claim 30 is directed towards the CU-CP of claim 28 that is further limited to similar features to claim 22. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 31:
Claim 31 is directed towards the CU-CP of claim 27 that is further limited to similar features to claim 23. Therefore, claim 31 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 32:
Claim 32 is directed towards the CU-CP of claim 27 that is further limited to similar features to claim 24. Therefore, claim 32 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 24 above.
Regarding claim 33:
Claim 33 is directed towards the CU-CP of claim 27 that is further limited to similar features to claim 25. Therefore, claim 33 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 25 above.
Regarding claim 34:
Claim 34 is directed towards the CU-CP of claim 27 that is further limited to similar features to claim 26. Therefore, claim 34 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 26 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471