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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/4/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 47 have been considered but 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 § 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 47, 69, 72-74, and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAEK et al. (EP 4120792) in view of Zhou et al. (US 20240032070) and AGIWAL et al. (US 20170251500).
Regarding claims 47 and 76, BAEK teaches transmitting, by a user equipment (UE) to a base station, an MBS interest indication associated with receiving data of at least one MBS service (Fig. 2, operation 250, when the UE 220 desires to receive an MBS service, the UE 220 may transmit, to the base station 210, the RRC setup request message or the RRC reestablishment request message including MBS configuration as a cause value); and
receiving, by the UE from the base station, the data of the at least one MBS service, wherein transmitting the MBS interest indication includes transmitting the MBS interest indication based on a reception of a system information block (SIB) message from the base station, the system information block being related to MBS (Fig. 2, operation 235, the UE 220 may receive a SIB from the selected cell).
However, BAEK does not expressly teach at least one MBS service via at least one first beam. Zhou teaches Fig. 27A-Fig. 32, MBS, and [0172] FIG. 12A illustrates examples of three downlink beam management procedures: P1, P2, and P3. Procedure P1 may enable a UE measurement on transmit (Tx) beams of a transmission reception point (TRP) (or multiple TRPs), e.g., to support a selection of one or more base station Tx beams and/or UE Rx beams (shown as ovals in the top row and bottom row, respectively, of P1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with Zhou in order to provide radio coverage to the wireless device 106 over a wide geographic area to support wireless device mobility ([0056], Zhou).
Neither BAEK nor Zhou expressly teaches the system information block being related to MBS SIB message indicating one or more MBS Service Area Identifiers of current and/or neighboring carrier frequencies. AGIWAL teaches Table 1, SIB 15 - MBMS Service Area Identifiers of the 2216 bits (Max) current and neighboring frequencies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with AGIWAL in order to meet the growing demand for high speed data services, support ultra-reliability and low latency applications and support massive machine type communication ([0007], AGIWAL).
Regarding claim 69, BAEK teaches wherein the MBS interest indication includes a list of the at least one MBS service (Fig. 2, operation 240, The UE 220 having received the SIB including the MBS information may identify an MBS service of interest in the list of MBS services being already provided or providable from each serving cell).
Regarding claim 72, BAEK teaches wherein the transmitting the MBS interest indication includes transmitting the MBS interest indication in response to a trigger, wherein the trigger is a change of a cell (Fig. 2, operation 230, Cell Reselection).
Regarding claim 73, BAEK teaches transitioning, by the UE, from a first radio resource control (RRC) state to a second RRC state, wherein transmitting the MBS interest indication includes transmitting the MBS interest indication after transitioning from the first RRC state to the second RRC state (Fig. 2, operations 265 and 275).
Regarding claim 74, BAEK teaches wherein the first RRC state corresponds to one of an RRC inactive state or an RRC idle state ([0011]the UE may receive multicast data in an RRC idle mode or an RRC inactive mode as well as the RRC connected mode).
1-46. (Canceled)
48-68. (Canceled)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 70, 71, and 75 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, with a timely filed terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNSOOK CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1822. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 5712723940. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/EUNSOOK CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights