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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 04/03/2026.
Claims 1-9 and 16-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 04/03/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1, 8, and 9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
There is a new claim scope of independent claims 1 and 8. Regarding the arguments on the bottom of page 7, the phrase in [0037] of Ho, ‘can be set… such that’ shows that the value is set in order to indicate retransmission. The same paragraph [0037] of Ho as shown in arguments on page 8 recites: “an associated NDI can be set pursuant to decision block 224 such that a retransmission is indicated with NDI = 1 (e.g. , as shown at block 238)”, using the particular NDI value of 1 to indicate retransmission is considered a default value as that is the value set for retransmission. Therefore, the new claim scope is taught by the prior art. Please see claim rejections section below for more details.
Regarding claim 9, [0037] of Ho as shown in arguments on page 8 recites: “an associated NDI can be set pursuant to decision block 224 such that a retransmission is indicated with NDI = 1 (e.g. , as shown at block 238)”. The statement that ‘a retransmission is indicated with NDI = 1’ does suggest that retransmission is based on a value of DCI. Please see claim rejections section below for more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-2, 5, 7-9, 16, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (Pub. No.: US 2020/0322921 A1) in view of Ho (WO 2010/030806 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches
A method implemented in a base station for managing multicast and/or broadcast services (MBS) (Zhou [0010]: method of wireless communication performed by a base station (BS) for multicast or broadcast communication), the method comprising:
transmitting first data associated with a first MBS to a plurality of user equipment units (UEs), using semi- persistent scheduling (SPS) resources (Zhou [0011] and [0045]: transmit to a UE SPS information; [0031]: UEs (plurality of UEs));
determining that at least one of the plurality of UEs failed to receive a data packet included in the first data (Zhou [0042], [0050], and [0071-0072]: feedback regarding the transmission, which can be negative feedback/NACK);
scrambling a downlink control information (DCI) using a group radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI) shared by the plurality of UEs (Zhou [0051-0052], [0055], [0066], [0070], and [0094]: common RNTI (common amongst the group, instant application also refers to the term as group-common RNTI [0005]) used to scramble DCI);
transmitting the DCI to the plurality of UEs, to schedule transmitting of second data including the data packet (Zhou [0055] and [0101]: transmission to the UEs scheduling for feedback (second data))…, and
transmitting second data associated with the first MBS to at least one of the plurality of UEs, using dynamic scheduling (Zhou [0054-0055], [0099], and [0101]: multicast/broadcast communication using dynamic scheduling).
Zhou does not appear to teach including setting an NDI value in the DCI to a default value of 1 to indicate a retransmission.
However, Ho, in the analogous art of scheduling utilizing RNTI, teaches
…including setting a new data indicator (NDI) value in the DCI to a default value of 1 indicate a retransmission (Ho [0037]: NDI set to 1 indicating retransmission, “an associated NDI can be set pursuant to decision block 224 such that a retransmission is indicated with NDI = 1 (e.g. , as shown at block 238)”; using the particular NDI value of 1 to indicate retransmission is considered the default value as that is the value set for retransmission)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Ho and include setting an NDI value in the DCI to 1 to indicate a retransmission. Doing so would allow for utilization of an indication to differentiate new transmissions from retransmissions (Ho [0037]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou modified by Ho teaches
The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above), wherein:
transmitting the first data includes transmitting the data packet using a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) mechanism (Zhou [0063] and [0050]: a number of hybrid automatic repeat request processes for the broadcast/multicast communication);
retransmitting the data packet includes using the HARQ mechanism (Zhou [0050]: ACK/NACK feedback for retransmission).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou modified by Ho teaches
The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above), further comprising:
transmitting a DCI to one or more of the plurality of UEs, including scrambling the DCI (as mapped above) with…
Zhou appears to be silent regarding a first RNTI different from the G-RNTI.
However, Ho, in the analogous art of scheduling utilizing RNTI, teaches
…a first RNTI different from the G-RNTI (Ho [0010] and [0057]: first and second RNTIs, second RNTI being different from the first).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Ho and include a first RNTI different from the G-RNTI. Doing so would allow for processing a new data indicator associated with the second transmission (Ho [0057]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou modified by Ho teaches
The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above), further comprising:
Zhou further teaches
determining that the at least one of the plurality of UEs failed to receive the second data; and
retransmitting the second data using dynamic scheduling. (Zhou [0055]: retransmit using a next SPS occasion using dynamically scheduled resources for the UEs that reported a NACK (plurality of UEs that failed to receive the second data))
Regarding claim 8, Zhou teaches
A base station (Zhou [0004]: base station (BS)) comprising:
processing hardware configured to manage multicast and/or broadcast services (MBS) (Zhou [0006]: broadcast/multicast communication; Zhou [0011]: BS including processors), including:
transmit first data associated with a first MBS to a plurality of user equipment units (UEs), using semi- persistent scheduling (SPS) resources (Zhou [0011] and [0045]: transmit to a UE SPS information; [0031]: UEs (plurality of UEs)),
determine that at least one of the plurality of UEs failed to receive a data packet included in the first data (Zhou [0042], [0050], and [0071-0072]: feedback regarding the transmission, which can be negative feedback/NACK),
scramble a downlink control information (DCI) using a group radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI) shared by the plurality of UEs (Zhou [0051-0052], [0055], [0066], [0070], and [0094]: common RNTI (common amongst the group, instant application also refers to the term as group-common RNTI [0005]) used to scramble DCI),
transmit the DCI to the plurality of UEs, to schedule transmitting of second data including the data packet (Zhou [0055] and [0101]: transmission to the UEs scheduling for feedback (second data)),…, and
transmit second data associated with the first MBS to at least one of the plurality of UEs, using dynamic scheduling (Zhou [0054-0055], [0099], and [0101]: multicast/broadcast communication using dynamic scheduling).
Zhou does not appear to teach including setting an NDI value in the DCI to a default value of 1 to indicate a retransmission.
However, Ho, in the analogous art of scheduling utilizing RNTI, teaches
… including setting a new data indicator (NDI) value in the DCI to a default value of 1 to indicate a retransmission (Ho [0037]: NDI set to 1 indicating retransmission, “an associated NDI can be set pursuant to decision block 224 such that a retransmission is indicated with NDI = 1 (e.g. , as shown at block 238)”; using the particular NDI value of 1 to indicate retransmission is considered the default value as that is the value set for retransmission)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Ho and include setting an NDI value in the DCI to 1 to indicate a retransmission. Doing so would allow for utilization of an indication to differentiate new transmissions from retransmissions (Ho [0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou teaches
A method implemented in a user equipment (UE) for receiving multicast and/or broadcast services (MBS) (Zhou [0006]: method by a UE for broadcast/multicast communication (MBS)), the method comprising:
receiving, from a radio access network (RAN), first data associated with a first MBS, via semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) resources (Zhou [0004-0005], [0007-0008], [0011], and [0045]: UE receiving SPS information from a radio network (BS); [0031]: UEs (plurality of UEs));
determining that a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) transmission of a data packet included in the first data cannot be decoded (Zhou [0042], [0050], and [0071-0072]: feedback regarding the transmission, which can be negative feedback/NACK (NACK is a HARQ transmission); Zhou [0063] and [0050]: a number of hybrid automatic repeat request processes for the broadcast/multicast communication); and
receiving, from the RAN, a downlink control information (DCI) scrambled using a group radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI) the UE shares with at least one other UE, the DCI scheduling a dynamic transmission of second data (Zhou [0051-0052], [0055], [0066], [0070], and [0094]: common RNTI (common amongst the group, instant application also refers to the term as group-common RNTI [0005]) used to scramble DCI; Zhou [0055] and [0101]: transmission to the UEs scheduling for feedback (second data); Zhou [0054-0055], [0099], and [0101]: multicast/broadcast communication using dynamic scheduling); and
receiving, from the RAN, the second data associated with the first MBS or a second MBS, via a dynamically scheduled resource (Zhou [0054-0055], [0099], and [0101]: multicast/broadcast communication using dynamic scheduling; Zhou [0055] and [0101]: transmission to the UEs scheduling for feedback (second data)), including determining that the second data includes a HARQ retransmission of the data packet (Zhou [0050]: ACK/NACK feedback for retransmission) …
Zhou does not appear to teach including setting an NDI value in the DCI to 1 to indicate a retransmission.
However, Ho, in the analogous art of scheduling utilizing RNTI, teaches
in response to determining that a new data indicator (NDI) in the DCI is set to 1 (Ho [0037]: NDI set to 1 indicating retransmission: “an associated NDI can be set pursuant to decision block 224 such that a retransmission is indicated with NDI = 1 (e.g. , as shown at block 238)”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Ho and include setting an NDI value in the DCI to 1 to indicate a retransmission. Doing so would allow for utilization of an indication to differentiate new transmissions from retransmissions (Ho [0037]).
Regarding claim 16, Zhou modified by Ho teaches
The base station of claim 8 (the limitations of parent claim 8 as indicated above), wherein:
transmitting the first data includes transmitting the data packet using a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) mechanism (Zhou [0063] and [0050]: a number of hybrid automatic repeat request processes for the broadcast/multicast communication);
retransmitting the data packet includes using the HARQ mechanism (Zhou [0050]: ACK/NACK feedback for retransmission).
Regarding claim 19, Zhou modified by Ho teaches
The base station of claim 8 (the limitations of parent claim 8 as indicated above), wherein the processing hardware is further configured to:
transmit a DCI to one or more of the plurality of UEs, including scramble the DCI (as mapped above) with…
Zhou appears to be silent regarding a first RNTI different from the G-RNTI.
However, Ho, in the analogous art of scheduling utilizing RNTI, teaches
…a first RNTI different from the G-RNTI (Ho [0010] and [0057]: first and second RNTIs, second RNTI being different from the first).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Ho and include a first RNTI different from the G-RNTI. Doing so would allow for processing a new data indicator associated with the second transmission (Ho [0057]).
Regarding claim 21, Zhou modified by Ho teaches
The base station of claim 8 (the limitations of parent claim 8 as indicated above), wherein the processing hardware is further configured to:
Zhou further teaches
determine that the at least one of the plurality of UEs failed to receive the second data; and
retransmit the second data using dynamic scheduling. (Zhou [0055]: retransmit using a next SPS occasion using dynamically scheduled resources for the UEs that reported a NACK (plurality of UEs that failed to receive the second data))
Regarding claim 22, Zhou modified by Ho teaches
The method of claim 9 (the limitations of parent claim 9 as indicated above),
Zhou modified by Ho appears to be silent regarding wherein the G-RNTI is a group configured scheduling RNTI (G-CS-RNTI).
However, ASUSTek, in the analogous art of SPS group common transmissions, teaches
wherein the G-RNTI is a group configured scheduling RNTI (G-CS-RNTI) (ASUSTek pg. 3 lines 12-13 and 15-17: G-CS-RNTI).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Zhou and Ho to incorporate the teachings of ASUSTek and include the G-RNTI being a group configured scheduling RNTI. Doing so would allow for reception of retransmissions of SPS group common PDSCHs (ASUSTek pg. 3 line 15-17).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (Pub. No.: US 2020/0322921 A1) in view of Ho (WO 2010/030806 A1) further in view of ASUSTek (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #104b-e, R1-2103658, 8.12.1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou modified by Ho teaches
The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above),
Zhou modified by Ho does not appear to teach wherein the G-RNTI is a group configured scheduling RNTI (G-CS-RNTI).
However, ASUSTek, in the analogous art of SPS group common transmissions, teaches
wherein the G-RNTI is a group configured scheduling RNTI (G-CS-RNTI) (ASUSTek pg. 3 lines 12-13 and 15-17: G-CS-RNTI).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Zhou and Ho to incorporate the teachings of ASUSTek and include the G-RNTI being a group configured scheduling RNTI. Doing so would allow for reception of retransmissions of SPS group common PDSCHs (ASUSTek pg. 3 line 15-17).
Regarding claim 17, Zhou modified by Ho teaches
The base station of claim 8 (the limitations of parent claim 8 as indicated above), wherein:
Zhou modified by Ho does not appear to teach the G-RNTI is a group configured scheduling RNTI (G-CS-RNTI).
However, ASUSTek, in the analogous art of SPS group common transmissions, teaches
the G-RNTI is a group configured scheduling RNTI (G-CS-RNTI) (ASUSTek pg. 3 lines 12-13 and 15-17: G-CS-RNTI).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Zhou and Ho to incorporate the teachings of ASUSTek and include the G-RNTI being a group configured scheduling RNTI. Doing so would allow for reception of retransmissions of SPS group common PDSCHs (ASUSTek pg. 3 line 15-17).
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (Pub. No.: US 2020/0322921 A1) in view of Ho (WO 2010/030806 A1) further in view of CMCC (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #104-e, R1-2101867, 8.12.1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou modified by Ho teaches
The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above), further comprising:
… and
wherein transmitting the second data includes transmitting at least a portion of the one or more data packets (Zhou [0054-0055], [0099], and [0101]: multicast/broadcast transmission communication; Zhou [0055] and [0101]: transmission feedback (second data)).
Zhou modified by Ho appears to be silent regarding determining that a size of one or more data packets associated with the first MBS exceeds a capacity of the SPS resources.
However, CMCC, in the analogous art of group scheduling for MBS, teaches
determining that a size of one or more data packets associated with the first MBS exceeds a capacity of the SPS resources (CMCC pg. 5 lines 12-15 and pg. 37 lines 23-25: MBS DCI size exceeds other scheduling DCI, where DCI comprises the resource allocation);…
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Zhou and Ho to incorporate the teachings of CMCC and determine that a size of one or more data packets associated with the first MBS exceeds a capacity of the SPS resources. Doing so would allow for size alignment of other DCI formats (CMCC pg. 37 lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 18, Zhou modified by Ho teaches
The base station of claim 8 (the limitations of parent claim 8 as indicated above), wherein the processing hardware is further configured to:
…and
wherein transmitting the second data includes transmitting at least a portion of the one or more data packets (Zhou [0054-0055], [0099], and [0101]: multicast/broadcast transmission communication; Zhou [0055] and [0101]: transmission feedback (second data)).
Zhou modified by Ho appears to be silent regarding determine that a size of one or more data packets associated with the first MBS exceeds a capacity of the SPS resources.
However, CMCC, in the analogous art of group scheduling for MBS, teaches
determine that a size of one or more data packets associated with the first MBS exceeds a capacity of the SPS resources (CMCC pg. 5 lines 12-15 and pg. 37 lines 23-25: MBS DCI size exceeds other scheduling DCI, where DCI comprises the resource allocation);…
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Zhou and Ho to incorporate the teachings of CMCC and determine that a size of one or more data packets associated with the first MBS exceeds a capacity of the SPS resources. Doing so would allow for size alignment of other DCI formats (CMCC pg. 37 lines 23-25).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (Pub. No.: US 2020/0322921 A1), herein Zhou 921, in view of Ho (WO 2010/030806 A1), further in view of Zhou (Pub. No.: US 2023/0232430 A1), herein Zhou 430.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou 921 modified by Ho teaches
The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above), wherein:
the SPS resources are first resources (Zhou 921 [0050]);
Zhou 921 modified by Ho appears to be silent regarding the method further comprising:
providing, to the plurality of UEs, second SPS resources; and transmitting third data associated with a second MBS to the plurality of UEs, using the second SPS resources, concurrently with transmitting the first data.
However, Zhou 430, in the analogous field of SPS for MBS and HARQ processes, teaches
the method further comprising:
providing, to the plurality of UEs, second SPS resources (Zhou 430 [0337]: second SPS resources in DCI);
transmitting third data associated with a second MBS to the plurality of UEs, using the second SPS resources, concurrently with transmitting the first data (Zhou 430 [0337]: transmitting second DCI (third data, 2 DL and 1 UL) using second SPS resources; Zhou 430 [0343-0345]: plurality of SPS parameters can be sent concurrently; Zhou 430 [0281] and [0319]: “ second MBS”, data associated with second MBS can be to any degree, if both are part of the same process they are associated).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Zhou 921 and Ho to incorporate the teachings of Zhou 430 and providing, to the plurality of UEs, second SPS resources; and transmitting third data associated with a second MBS to the plurality of UEs, using the second SPS resources, concurrently with transmitting the first data. Doing so would allow for different wireless devices to be indicated by the specific parameters (Zhou 430 [0344]).
Regarding claim 20, Zhou 921 modified by Ho teaches
The base station of claim 8 (the limitations of parent claim 8 as indicated above), wherein:
the SPS resources are first resources (Zhou 921 [0050]);
Zhou 921 modified by Ho appears to be silent regarding the processing hardware further configured to: provide, to the plurality of UEs, second SPS resources; transmit third data associated with a second MBS to the plurality of UEs, using the second SPS resources, concurrently with transmitting the first data.
However, Zhou 430, in the analogous field of SPS for MBS and HARQ processes, teaches
the processing hardware further configured to:
provide, to the plurality of UEs, second SPS resources (Zhou 430 [0337]: second SPS resources in DCI);
transmit third data associated with a second MBS to the plurality of UEs, using the second SPS resources, concurrently with transmitting the first data (Zhou 430 [0337]: transmitting second DCI (third data, 2 DL and 1 UL) using second SPS resources; Zhou 430 [0343-0345]: plurality of SPS parameters can be sent concurrently; Zhou 430 [0281] and [0319]: “ second MBS”, data associated with second MBS can be to any degree, if both are part of the same process they are associated).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Zhou 921 and Ho to incorporate the teachings of Zhou 430 and providing, to the plurality of UEs, second SPS resources; and transmitting third data associated with a second MBS to the plurality of UEs, using the second SPS resources, concurrently with transmitting the first data. Doing so would allow for different wireless devices to be indicated by the specific parameters (Zhou 430 [0344]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RACHEL E MARKS whose telephone number is (703)756-1309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-6pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571)270-7191. 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.
/R.E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights