DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted December 23, 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-9 are currently pending (claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 are withdrawn from consideration).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
4. Claims 1, 2, 7, and all dependent thereon, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1: Applicant’s specification fails to provide adequate support in the manner required for 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for a first and second SIB, including a first and second MBS bandwidth part information, respectively, and indicating a first and second bandwidth part, respectively.
Regarding claim 2: Applicant’s specification fails to provide adequate support in the manner required for 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for allocating a second bandwidth part used for both unicast transmission to a user equipment, as well as data of a second MBS service (note claim 1, lines 12-14).
5. 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.
6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding claim 2: the term “a second bandwidth part” (lines 3-4) is recited twice (note also claim 1, line 12) without clarifying if this is the same bandwidth part. For purposes of examination, the said term is interpreted as either the same or different bandwidth part.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
11. Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR Publication No. 20200073118 A (hereinafter “Kim”), alternatively in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0040690 A1 (hereinafter “Chen”), and in further view of either U.S. Publication No. 2023/0042361 A1 (hereinafter “Wu”) or U.S. Publication No. 2022/0361155 A1 (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 1: Kim teaches a communication control method used in a mobile communication system comprising a network node for providing a multicast broadcast service (MBS) to a user equipment, the communication control method comprising:
transmitting, by the network node configured to manage a cell, to the user equipment, first MBS bandwidth part information corresponding to a first MBS service, [and] second MBS bandwidth part information corresponding to a second MBS service, the first MBS service being different from the second MBS service, wherein the first MBS bandwidth part information indicates a first bandwidth part used for reception of first control information, the first control information being used for the user equipment to receive data of the first MBS service in the cell, and the second MBS bandwidth part information indicates a second bandwidth part used for reception of second control information, the second control information being used for the user equipment to receive data of the second MBS service in the cell (see, e.g., [0007]-[0009], [0123]-[0129], [0141]-[0143], [0149]; a base station transmits BWP information for multiple MBS services).
Kim does not explicitly state the feature of an MBS session. To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Kim, it is nevertheless taught in Chen (see, e.g., [0049], [0091]; note also [0007]-[0009], [0069], [0097]-[0099] – Chen significantly overlaps the teachings of Kim with respect to BWP information transmission and functionality). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Chen, such as the MBS session and/or BWP signaling and functionality, within the system of Kim, in order to increase operation flexibility and address 5G requirements.
Kim modified by Chen teaches SIB transmission for control information (see, e.g., [0153]-[0159]), but does not explicitly state the feature of a first and second SIB, respectively. However, this feature is taught by Wu (see e.g., [0099]-[0101], [0117], [0118]; note also variable configurations, including overlapping BWPs [0102]-[0116]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Wu, such as the signal or configuration functionality, within the system of Kim modified by Chen, in order to indicate services and/or resources.
Alternatively, the said feature is taught by Liu (see, e.g., [0072]-[0078]). Similarly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Liu, such as the signal or configuration functionality, within the system of Kim modified by Chen, in order to indicate services and/or resources.
Regarding claim 2: Kim alternatively modified by Chen, and either Wu or Liu, further teaches allocating, by the network node, to the user equipment, a second bandwidth part used for unicast transmission to the user equipment; and prioritizing, by the user equipment, reception of the first bandwidth part over reception of the second bandwidth part when the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part temporally overlap, and the user equipment desires to receive the first MBS service (see, e.g., Kim [0007], [0141]-[0143]; Chen [0161]; Liu [0062]; and/or Wu [0102]-[0116] ). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
Regarding claims 5-7: Regarding claim 2: Kim alternatively modified by Chen, and either Wu or Liu, further teaches wherein a plurality of MBS control channels are associated with respective different network slices (i.e. claim 5); wherein each of the plurality of MBS control channels transmits MBS control information comprising a network slice identifier identifying a corresponding network slice (i.e. claim 6); and receiving, by the network node or the user equipment, a network slice identifier associated with an MBS service identifier, from a network node (i.e. claim 7) (see, e.g., Chen [0080], [0081], [0091]-[0094]; note also Kim [0021], [0030], [0041], [0063], [0130]-[0132]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claims 5-7.
Conclusion
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476