CTNF 18/321,946 CTNF 70717 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The IDS filed 08/11/2025 has been considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, 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. Claim 1, the limitation “wherein the multicast BWP is a virtual BWP” is indefinite. The term “virtual BWP” is not specifically defined in the specification. “Virtual BWP” does not appear to be a term of art. “Virtual BWP” appears to be Applicant own coined term. Since, the specification lacks a definition for the term “virtual BWP”, the term on its own does not convey any specific limitation. What is the different between a virtual BWP and a non-virtual/actual BWP? The claim, as currently amended, does not provide any further limitation to determine the metes and bound of the term “virtual BWP”. A suggested solution is to, after the mention of “virtual BWP”, replace all instances of “wherein the multicast BWP is” to “wherein the virtual BWP is”. Claims 2, 8, 9, 16, and 20 the limitation “wherein the multicast BWP is a virtual BWP” is indefinite for the same rationale discussed in claim 1. Claim 2 and 9, the claims as amended now contain a “UE-specific BWP” and an “active UE-specific BWP”. It is unclear from the claim what is the different between a “UE-specific BWP” and an “active UE-specific BWP”. The claims lack contextual information to distinguish between a “UE-specific BWP” and an “active UE-specific BWP”. It is not clear from the claims how the multicast BWP has “a same subcarrier spacing (SCS) and cycle prefix (CP) length as the UE-specific BWP”, and at the same time, has “a different subcarrier spacing (SCS) or cycle prefix (CP) length than an active UE-specific BWP.” Dependent claims 3-7 and 10-15 are rejected because they are dependent upon a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17-19 and 21-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdoli et al. (US 20200267511 A1) and further in view of YOU et al. (WO 2014003407 A1) . Claim 17, Abdoli teaches a user equipment (UE) (fig.4C UE 222 or 224), comprising: one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to: receive an indication of a multicast bandwidth part (BWP) within a carrier bandwidth from a network entity ([0006] receiving … a control format including a resource allocation field from a base station …”, see also [0089]), wherein the multicast BWP is a virtual BWP that is identified by one or more control resource set (CORESET) bandwidth configurations (See [0011], [0087] common control resource set (CORESET)), wherein a lowest resource block index and a highest resource block index of one or more CORESETs corresponds to the virtual BWP ; and receive multicast data from the network entity in the multicast BWP ([0091] multicast by the base station). Abdoli does not specifically disclose: wherein a lowest resource block index and a highest resource block index of one or more CORESETs corresponds to the virtual BWP. Abdoli discloses a lowest resource block index of a CORESET corresponds to the virtual BWP ([0089] “… the lowest RB of the sub-band refers to the starting RB … RB which has the smallest CRB index”). Abdoli teaches the sub-band size granularity can be as small as one RB ([0087] last sentence) which can be assigned using a bitmap (see [0088] and fig.4D which shows a granularity size of 2). In similar field of invention, YOU (fig.18 (a)) shows a multicast BWP (MBSFN service A) that corresponds to a lowest resource block index (the bottom Freq of Cell A) and a highest resource block index (top Freq on Cell B). Given the teaching of Abdoli and YOU, assigning particular RB’s to the multicast BWP would have been a matter of design choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a multicast BWP that corresponds to a lowest RB index of a CORESET and a highest RB index of a CORESET to maximize the common RB’s among plural UE’s (as shown in a scenario in YOU fig.18(a)). (NOTE: the term “virtual BWP” is not specifically defined in the specification. Hence, under BRI, the term “virtual BWP” is considered as a label. The term is limited only by specific function or structure recited in the claim.) Regarding claim 18, Abdoli teaches the one or more CORESETs is a single CORESET for multicast that is configured on the UE ([0088] “the BWP 432, 434 are scheduled to the UEs 222, 224 (respectively), and may be on the same component carriers” i.e. interpreted as one CORESET). Regarding claim 19, Abdoli teaches the one or more CORESETs are multiple CORESETs for multicast that are configured on the UE (([0088] “the BWP 432, 434 are scheduled to the UEs 222, 224 (respectively), and … or on different component carriers” i.e. a CORESET on each component carrier = multiple CORESETs). The usage of lowest RB index and highest RB index would have been obvious design choice to maximize common RBs among plural UEs as explained in claim 17. Regarding claims 21-23, the claim recites a method corresponding to apparatus claims 17-19. Hence, they are rejected for similar rationales as stated for claims 17-19. Conclusion This action is non-final due to new art rejections for claims 17-19 and 21-23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG C DINH whose telephone number is (571)272-3943. The examiner can normally be reached IFW. 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, Sudhanshu Pathak can be reached at (571) 272-5509. 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. DUNG C. DINH Primary Examiner Art Unit 6214 /DUNG C DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6214 Application/Control Number: 18/321,946 Page 2 Art Unit: 6214 Application/Control Number: 18/321,946 Page 3 Art Unit: 6214 Application/Control Number: 18/321,946 Page 4 Art Unit: 6214 Application/Control Number: 18/321,946 Page 5 Art Unit: 6214 Application/Control Number: 18/321,946 Page 6 Art Unit: 6214
Prosecution Insights