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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on 08/16/2023 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-9, 13 and 14 are amended. Claims 1-14 are pending and addressed below.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
Takenaga, US 20130025837 document entitled “COOLER” in the IDS of 08/16/2023 is irrelevant to the invention and, therefore, is not considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10-14 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 10 is directed to an apparatus (communication terminal), however the claim does not recite any structural elements that would define the claimed apparatus. The claim is therefore indefinite. Claims 11-14, which are dependent upon claim 10, are therefore subject to the same 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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by IDS reference RICO ALVARINO; Alberto et al US 20210028890 A1, hereinafter RICO.
Regarding claim 1, RICO teaches, a communication system (RICO Fig. 1) comprising:
a base station conforming to New Radio Access Technology (RICO Fig. 3; para [2] “wireless communication systems, and more particularly, to retransmission aspects in new radio (NR) multicast”); and
a communication terminal (RICO Fig. 1) capable of performing multicast communication with the base station (RICO [19] “a method of wireless communication at a UE is provided. The method may include receiving, on a downlink communication channel from a network entity, multicast data from a network entity.”),
wherein while executing the multicast communication (RICO Fig. 7, 702; [117] “At block 702, the method 700 may receive, on a downlink communication channel from a network entity, first multicast data from a network entity.”), the communication terminal transmits reception status information to the base station in communication with the communication terminal (RICO Fig. 7, 706; [119] “At block 706, the method 700 may transmit, on an uplink communication channel to the network entity, a NACK to the network entity according to a HARQ process in response to determining that at least the multicast portion has not been received.”), the reception status information being information related to a data reception status (RICO Fig. 7, 704; [118] “At block 704, the method 700 may determine that at least a portion of the multicast data has not been received via multicast data transmission.”), and
the base station performs control of retransmission of data to the communication terminal on a basis of the reception status information (RICO Fig. 6, 604, 606; [108] “At block 604, the method 600 may receive, on an uplink communication channel, a NACK from one or more UEs from the plurality of UEs in response to the multicast data transmission.”, [109] “At block 606, the method 600 may transmit unicast data, including at a portion of the data to the one or more UEs according to a HARQ process to the at least one UE. In an aspect, the retransmission component 342, e.g., in conjunction with processor(s) 312, memory 316, and/or transceiver 302, may be configured to transmit unicast data, including at a portion of the data to the one or more UEs 104 according to a HARQ process to the at least one UE.”, teaches base station performing retransmission of multicast data in unicast, thus, implying control of retransmission).
Regarding claim 10, RICO teaches, a communication terminal (RICO Fig. 1) capable of performing multicast communication with a base station of a communication system to which New Radio Access Technology is applied (RICO Fig. 3; para [2] “wireless communication systems, and more particularly, to retransmission aspects in new radio (NR) multicast”),
wherein while executing the multicast communication (RICO Fig. 7, 702; [117] “At block 702, the method 700 may receive, on a downlink communication channel from a network entity, first multicast data from a network entity.”), the communication terminal transmits reception status information to the base station in communication with the communication terminal (RICO Fig. 7, 706; [119] “At block 706, the method 700 may transmit, on an uplink communication channel to the network entity, a NACK to the network entity according to a HARQ process in response to determining that at least the multicast portion has not been received.”), the reception status information being information related to a data reception status (RICO Fig. 7, 704; [118] “At block 704, the method 700 may determine that at least a portion of the multicast data has not been received via multicast data transmission.”).
Regarding claim 2, RICO teaches the system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
RICO further teaches, wherein the base station performs multicast transmission of data, using one or both of point-to-multipoint communication and point-to-point communication (RICO [34] “Multicast transmissions may efficiently use spectrum resources, which may allow the same copy of content to be sent to multiple UEs”, [35] “A first mode may correspond to a multicast transmission”, “A third mode may correspond to an initial unicast transmission”, teaches multicast data transmission in PTM (=multicast) or PTP (=unicast) manner).
Regarding claim 3, RICO teaches the system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
RICO further teaches, wherein the base station determines, on the basis of the reception status information, whether to perform data retransmission by point-to-multipoint communication or by point-to- point communication (RICO [35] “A second mode may correspond to a multicast transmission and a unicast retransmission. The second mode may support retransmissions for a small number of UEs, which in some cases may be more efficient in delivering data.”, teaches PTP retransmission based on reception status from a small number of UEs; [108], [109] “At block 606, the method 600 may transmit unicast data, including at a portion of the data to the one or more UEs according to a HARQ process to the at least one UE. In an aspect, the retransmission component 342, e.g., in conjunction with processor(s) 312, memory 316, and/or transceiver 302, may be configured to transmit unicast data, including at a portion of the data to the one or more UEs 104 according to a HARQ process to the at least one UE.”, teaches retransmission data is determined to be sent in unicast (=PTP) based on receiving NACK from UE.).
Regarding claim 4, RICO teaches the system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
RICO further teaches, wherein the base station uses point-to-multipoint communication for initial transmission of data, and uses point-to-point communication for retransmission of data (RICO [35] “A second mode may correspond to a multicast transmission and a unicast retransmission. The second mode may support retransmissions for a small number of UEs, which in some cases may be more efficient in delivering data.”, teaches multicast (=PTM) initial transmission and unicast (=PTP) retransmission).
Regarding claim 14, RICO teaches the communication terminal, as outlined in the rejection of claim 10.
RICO further teaches, wherein the communication terminal transmits the reception status information when a predetermined condition is satisfied (RICO [118]-[119] teaches terminal sending NACK (=reception status information) when the terminal determines that “at least a portion of the multicast data has not been received via multicast data transmission”, i.e., a predetermined condition is satisfied).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 5-6, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RICO, in view of XU; Bin et al US 20230209652 A1, hereinafter XU.
Regarding claim 5, RICO teaches the system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
RICO does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, XU teaches, wherein in a state in which retransmission of data is required, the base station uses point-to-point communication for both retransmission of data and initial transmission of subsequent data (XU [107] “In response to the terminal device failing to receive a data packet, the data packet is resent to the terminal device in the PTP transmission mode … the CU determines to transmit subsequent to-be-transmitted MBS data packets in the PTP transmission mode, to improve reliability of transmitting the MBS data packet.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of RICO to include the features as taught by XU above in order to provide a communication method to improve reliability of transmitting the first service data (XU [0007]).
Regarding claim 6, RICO teaches the system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
RICO does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, XU teaches, wherein in a state in which retransmission of data is required, the base station uses point-to-point communication for retransmission of data, and uses point-to-multipoint communication for initial transmission of subsequent data (XU [105] “For example, in response to a plurality of terminal devices intending to receive the MBS data packet, the CU determines to send the MBS data packet to the plurality of terminal devices in the PTM transmission mode…”, teaches initial transmission is PTM, XU [107] “In response to the terminal device failing to receive a data packet, the data packet is resent to the terminal device in the PTP transmission mode (where, to be specific, the first transmission mode is the PTP transmission mode). Alternatively, in response to determining, based on the third indication information, that a quantity of MBS data packets that the terminal device fails to receive is greater than or equal to a preset threshold, the CU determines to transmit subsequent to-be-transmitted MBS data packets in the PTP transmission mode, to improve reliability of transmitting the MBS data packet”, teaches that PTP is used for retransmission, and implies continue to using PTM for subsequent MBS transmission if the terminal does not indicate that a quantity of MBS data packets that the terminal device fails to receive is greater than or equal to a preset threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of RICO to include the features as taught by XU above in order to provide a communication method to improve reliability of transmitting the first service data (XU [0007]).
Regarding claim 8, RICO teaches the system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
RICO does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, XU teaches, wherein the base station includes a central unit and a distributed unit (A well-known architecture in 3GPP base station. see Xu Fig. 2 for CU and DU in access network device (=base station)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of RICO to include the features as taught by XU above in order to provide a communication method to improve reliability of transmitting the first service data (XU [0007]).
Regarding claim 11, RICO teaches the communication terminal, as outlined in the rejection of claim 10.
RICO does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, XU teaches, wherein the communication terminal transmits the reception status information, using a status report of Packet Data Convergence Protocol (XU [143], [145] teaches “data packet receiving status feedback information” in an indication information is carried in a PDCP status report).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of RICO to include the features as taught by XU above in order to provide a communication method to improve reliability of transmitting the first service data (XU [0007]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RICO, in view of Zhang; Congchi et al US 20240049256 A1, hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 7, RICO teaches the system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
RICO does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches, wherein the communication terminal is connected to two base stations (see Zhang [4] teaching dual connectivity for multicast transmission), and receives data multicast by one of the two base stations connected thereto (Zhang [78], teaches MBS non-supportive RAN node will coexist, therefore, implying that in a MR-DC dual connectivity scenario only one of the two RAN nodes may support MBS transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of RICO to include the features as taught by Zhang above in order to provide methods for exchanging configuration information regarding a multicast radio bearer (MRB) in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario (Zhang [0001]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RICO, in view of FUJISHIRO; Masato US 20230337327 A1, hereinafter FUJISHIRO.
Regarding claim 9, RICO teaches the system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
RICO does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, FUJISHIRO teaches, wherein the base station supports Integrated Access and Backhaul (A well-known architectural feature for 3GPP base station. FUJISHIRO [171] teaches base station in a multicast transmission supports Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of RICO to include the features as taught by FUJISHIRO above in order to provide a communication control method in a mobile communication system for providing a multicast broadcast service (MBS) (FUJISHIRO Abstract).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RICO, in view of IDS reference Shan; Baokun et al US 20190222970 A1, hereinafter Shan.
Regarding claim 12, RICO teaches the communication terminal, as outlined in the rejection of claim 10.
RICO does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Shan teaches, wherein the communication terminal transmits the reception status information, using Physical Random Access Channel (see Shan Fig. 7, (eNB->UE 1-to-UE x) “Transmit RLC PDUs 1 to N for a third time in a multicast manner”, UE 1-to-UE x -> eNB “UE 1 initiates random access and transmits feedback information to the base station”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of RICO to include the features as taught by Shan above in order to provide a multicast service transmission method, to improve a transmission success rate of an NB-IoT multicast service and reduce waste of network resources (Shan [0005]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RICO, in view of QI; Tao et al US 20230023919 A1, hereinafter QI.
Regarding claim 13, RICO teaches the communication terminal, as outlined in the rejection of claim 10.
RICO does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, QI teaches, wherein the communication terminal periodically transmits the reception status information (QI [106]-[107] teaches UE sending PDCP status report according to receiving status of the associated multicast data. Retransmission of data is based on the PDCP status report including the lost PDCP PDU SN information (=reception status information). [116] “The network is configured with a timer that periodically triggers the UE to perform PDCP SR for a PDCP entity associated with a bearer serving the multicast/broadcast service.”, teaches periodically transmitting PDCP status report including reception status information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of RICO to include the features as taught by QI above in order to provide methods for dynamically changing multicast or broadcast service delivery between multicast and unicast with service continuity (QI [0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KADIRI, US 20230308221 A1 - MRB ARCHITECTURE WITH PDCP RETRANSMISSION;
LIU, US 20230254749 A1 - MULTICAST SERVICE TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE;
IDS, HUANG, US 20200323024 A1 - COMMUNICATION METHOD AND RELATED PRODUCT;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472