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 Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 09/02/2025 for response of the office action mailed on 06/02/2025. Claims 1-5, 8, 11-15 and 18 have been amended. Claims 6-7, 9-10, 16-17 and 19-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5, 8, 11-15 and 18 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive/are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 11-12, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Babaei (US 20250254710 A1), Babaei hereinafter.
Re. Claim 1, Babaei teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: (Fig. 15);
obtaining a transport block (TB) of a transmission associated with a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process; (Fig. 2A, 16-21 & ¶0137 - In some examples, an MBS service or UE may be configured with confirmation/acknowledgement of delivery (e.g., HARQ Acknowledgements). In some examples, different MBS services may have different levels of HARQ/retransmission requirements/configurations. For example, PDCP or upper layer retransmission may be used for an MBS service for a UE or for UEs in an area. In some examples, MTCH transmissions associated with an MBS service may be configured with or without HARQ. In some examples, support for HARQ based MTCH transmissions may be configurable for an MBS service. Please also see ¶042, ¶043 and ¶0135);
and considering the transmission to be a new transmission, if the HARQ process is associated with a transmission indicated with a multicast and broadcast service (MBS) control channel-radio network temporary identifier (MCCH-RNTI) for MBS broadcast, (Fig. 16-21 & ¶0099 - In other examples some feedback (e.g., HARQ feedback or RLC feedback) may be used for transmissions via Multicast/Broadcast control channel and/or Multicast/Broadcast data channels. ¶0127 - The network may transmit information to the UEs by a broadcasting message (e.g., SIB and/or MCCH) or a dedicated RRC message … In some examples, RNTIs such as … MCCH-RNTI and MCCH-N-RNTI may be used for scheduling MTCH, MCCH and MCCH change notification, respectively. In some examples, explicit bit(s) may be added in DCI scrambled by MCCH-RNTI to indicate MCCH change notification. Considering multicast services with diverse requirements, multiple … MCCH-RNTIs may be introduced … Please see ¶0127. Examiner interprets when the network sends a control message using MCCH-RNTI, it is not a continuation of a previous unicast or retransmission, but a new scheduled broadcast using the MCCH-RNTI identifier. Also, the existence of a change notification bit and broadcast messages (SIB/MCCH) implies a new transmission rather than a retransmission of the same control data);
and the transmission is a first received transmission for the TB according to an MCCH schedule indicated by a radio resource control (RRC) (Fig. 16-21 & ¶0139 - In some examples, resource allocation information for MTCHs may be carried by an MCCH and UEs in all RRC states may obtain the MCCHs configuration information and their updates. Please also see ¶0131).
Re. Claims 2 and 12, Babaei teaches Claims 1 and 11.
Babaei further teaches based on the transmission being the new transmission, decoding for the TB, and delivering the decoded data to a disassembly and demultiplexing entity/wherein the instructions further cause the UE to: based on the transmission being the new transmission, decode data for the TB, and deliver the decoded data to a disassembly and demultiplexing entity (Fig. 2 & ¶0042 - The main services and functions of the MAC 204 or MAC 214 sublayer include: mapping between logical channels and transport channels; Multiplexing/demultiplexing of MAC Service Data Units (SDUs) belonging to one or different logical channels into/from Transport Blocks (TB) delivered to/from the physical layer on transport channels; … A single MAC entity may support multiple numerologies, transmission timings and cells. Mapping restrictions in logical channel prioritization control which numerology(ies), cell(s), and transmission timing(s) a logical channel may use).
Re. Claims 5 and 15, Babaei teaches Claims 1 and 11.
Babaei further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the UE to: consider/considering the transmission to be the new transmission, if the HARQ process is associated with a transmission indicated with a group-RNTI (G-RNTI) for MBS broadcast, and the transmission is a first received transmission for the TB according to an MBS traffic channel (MTCH) schedule indicated by the RRC (Fig. 16-21 & ¶0099 - In other examples some feedback (e.g., HARQ feedback or RLC feedback) may be used for transmissions via Multicast/Broadcast control channel and/or Multicast/Broadcast data channels. ¶0127 - The network may transmit information to the UEs by a broadcasting message (e.g., SIB and/or MCCH) or a dedicated RRC message … In some examples, RNTIs such as G-RNTI … may be used for scheduling MTCH, MCCH and MCCH change notification, respectively. … Considering multicast services with diverse requirements, multiple G-RNTIs … may be introduced … ¶0139 - In some examples, resource allocation information for MTCHs may be carried by an MCCH and UEs in all RRC states may obtain the MCCHs configuration information and their updates. Please also see ¶0128 & ¶0140).
Re. Claims 8 and 18, Babaei teaches Claims 1 and 11.
Babaei further teaches the HARQ process is performed by a HARQ entity of the UE (Fig. 2A/2B & ¶0042 - The main services and functions of the MAC 204 or MAC 214 sublayer include: … Error correction through Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) (one HARQ entity per cell in case of carrier aggregation (CA));
Re. Claim 11, Babaei teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising: at least one transceiver; at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver; and at least one memory, communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, storing instructions executable by the at least one processor individually or in any combination to cause the UE to: (Fig. 15 & ¶0095-¶0098);
obtain a transport block (TB) of a transmission associated with a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process, and consider the transmission to be a new transmission, (Fig. 2A, 16-21 & ¶0137 - In some examples, an MBS service or UE may be configured with confirmation/acknowledgement of delivery (e.g., HARQ Acknowledgements). In some examples, different MBS services may have different levels of HARQ/retransmission requirements/configurations. For example, PDCP or upper layer retransmission may be used for an MBS service for a UE or for UEs in an area. In some examples, MTCH transmissions associated with an MBS service may be configured with or without HARQ. In some examples, support for HARQ based MTCH transmissions may be configurable for an MBS service. Please also see ¶042, ¶043 and ¶0135);
if the HARQ process is associated with a transmission indicated with a multicast and broadcast service (MBS) control channel-radio network temporary identifier (MCCH-RNTI) for MBS broadcast, (Fig. 16-21 & ¶0099 - In other examples some feedback (e.g., HARQ feedback or RLC feedback) may be used for transmissions via Multicast/Broadcast control channel and/or Multicast/Broadcast data channels. ¶0127 - The network may transmit information to the UEs by a broadcasting message (e.g., SIB and/or MCCH) or a dedicated RRC message … In some examples, RNTIs such as … MCCH-RNTI and MCCH-N-RNTI may be used for scheduling MTCH, MCCH and MCCH change notification, respectively. In some examples, explicit bit(s) may be added in DCI scrambled by MCCH-RNTI to indicate MCCH change notification. Considering multicast services with diverse requirements, multiple … MCCH-RNTIs may be introduced … Please see ¶0127. Examiner interprets when the network sends a control message using MCCH-RNTI, it is not a continuation of a previous unicast or retransmission, but a new scheduled broadcast using the MCCH-RNTI identifier. Also, the existence of a change notification bit and broadcast messages (SIB/MCCH) implies a new transmission rather than a retransmission of the same control data);
and the transmission is a first received transmission for the TB according to an MCCH schedule indicated by a radio resource control (RRC) (Fig. 16-21 & ¶0139 - In some examples, resource allocation information for MTCHs may be carried by an MCCH and UEs in all RRC states may obtain the MCCHs configuration information and their updates. Please also see ¶0131).
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.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Babaei, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 20120320853 A1), Kwon hereinafter.
Re. Claims 3 and 13, Babaei teaches Claims 1 and 11.
Yet, Babaei does not explicitly teach if the transmission is a retransmission, decoding the TB by combining data included in the TB with stored data related for the TB.
However, in the analogous art, Kwon explicitly teaches if the transmission is a retransmission, decoding the TB by combining data included in the TB with stored data related for the TB/the instructions further cause the UE to: if the transmission is a retransmission, decode the TB by combining data included in the TB with stored data for the TB (Fig. 2-4 & ¶0134 - Meanwhile, if the received data is retransmission data, received through each CC is demodulated by using a reception algorithm through which transmission data can be easily received based on control information about the relevant data, temporarily stored in the HARQ block of the relevant CC, and then demodulated using a predetermined HARQ scheme along with previously transmitted data. ¶0135 - If the original information data can be extracted because a HARQ method used in a wireless communication system allows for recurrent decoding and thus an error is not generated in the data, the data is immediately transferred to a higher layer. Please also see Fig. 6, 8A & ¶0046, ¶0137).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kwon to the teaching of Babaei. The motivation would be because the next-generation wireless communication system requires a more efficient scheme for transmitting and receiving control information and data in order to guarantee reliability of data (¶0008, Kwon).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Babaei, and further in view of Babaei et al. (US 20240039661 A1), Babaei2 hereinafter.
Re. Claims 4 and 14, Babaei teaches Claims 1 and 11.
Babaei further teaches if the HARQ process is associated with the transmission indicated with the MCCH-RNTI, (Fig. 16-21 & ¶0127 - In some examples, RNTIs such as G-RNTI, MCCH-RNTI and MCCH-N-RNTI may be used for scheduling MTCH, MCCH and MCCH change notification, respectively. In some examples, explicit bit(s) may be added in DCI scrambled by MCCH-RNTI to indicate MCCH change notification. Considering multicast services with diverse requirements, multiple G-RNTIs and MCCH-RNTIs may be introduced. In some examples, beam sweeping mechanism may be used for the broadcast-based transmissions for multicast, e.g., MCCH/MTCH and the related scheduling DCI(s). In some examples, HARQ feedback may be used to enhance transmission efficiency and reliability for multicast);
Yet, Babaei does not explicitly teach the transmission includes a downlink assignment and redundancy version for the HARQ process.
However, in the analogous art, Babaei2 explicitly teaches the transmission includes a downlink assignment and redundancy version for the HARQ process (Abstract - A wireless device receives downlink control information (DCI) comprising a first HARQ process identifier and a resource assignment. ¶0267 - The wireless device may create the transport block and store one or more redundancy versions of the transport block in a HARQ buffer associated with the first HARQ process. Please also see ¶0134 and ¶0220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Babaei2 to the teaching of Babaei. The motivation would be because embodiments of the present disclosure are described with reference to the RAN of a 3GPP 5G network (¶0053, Babaei2).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7673. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571) 270-0422. 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.
/ALYSSA WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2465B
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465