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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 & 7 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Claims 3-6 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 & 7 have been amended.
New grounds of rejections to claims 1 & 7 have been made under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 103 based on amendments to these claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the Office Action includes assertion that claims recite terms that invoke an interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that no claim interpretations invoking 35 USC 112(f) were part of the latest Final Rejection record dated.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 2/9/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 & 7 under 35 USC 103 based on Dai et al. (US 20230422136)(herein after “Dai”) in view of Di Gorolamo et al. (US 20230388866)(herein after “Di Gorolamo”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejections are made under 35 USC 103 based on Dai in view of Di Gorolamo and further in view of Akazawa et al. (US 2023/0388857)(herein after “Akazawa”).
Applicant submits that claims 1 & 7 are patentable based on amendments to these claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that, per 35 U.S.C. 103, a patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained 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 (see §MPEP 2141).
Regarding claims 1 & 7, applicant argues that Dai in view of Di Gorolamo fail to disclose the amended limitations “establishing a first Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) entity terminating a first MBS transmission path from the source cell”, “establishing a second PDCP entity terminating a second MBS transmission path from the candidate cell” and “discarding the received packet in response to a determination that the received packet has already been received by the first PDCP entity”. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that these limitations were pulled in from cancelled claims 3 & 6, for which the prior Final Rejection of record dated 11/10/2025 documented how these limitations are disclosed by Dai in view of Di Gorolamo. Not arguments have been made by applicant regarding the mapping of Dai and Di Gorolamo to these limitations.
Applicant argues that Dai in view of Di Gorolamo fail to disclose the amended limitation “by the second PDCP entity; inquiring by the second PDCP entity, of the first PDCP entity about a PDCP sequence number of a received packet”. Examiner agrees, however because this limitation represents a new limitation that was not part of claims 1 or 7 or any dependent claim in the prior record of Claims dated 9/19/2025, examiner introduces new reference Akazawa that teaches this limitation. Applicant’s arguments with respect to this limitation in claims 1 & 7 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejections do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Based on the above discussion, examiner withdraws rejection of claims 1 & 7 under 35 USC 103 based on Dai in view of Di Gorolamo, but introduces new grounds of rejections of these claims under 35 USC 103 based on Dai in view of Di Gorolamo, and further in view of Akazawa.
Regarding claims 3-6, rejections of these claims under 35 USC 103 are moot as these claims have been cancelled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2021-175942, filed on 10/27/2021.
Claim Interpretation
Several of the claims in the current application recite “before performing the CHO”. A conditional handover consists of many steps such as sending a HO request, sending a HO request Ack, sending RRC Reconfiguration & complete messages and performing the HO. For the purpose of this review the examiner is interpreting “before performing the CHO” as “before performing the HO”.
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 1 & 7 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 recites the limitation "in response to determining that the candidate cell provides the same MBS session". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “the same MBS session” is not previously defined in the claim. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting this limitation as "in response to determining that the candidate cell provides the MBS session".
Claim 7 recites the limitations “receive an MBMS session provided by a source cell through Point-To-Multipoint (PTM) from a source cell” and “receive from the source cell”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “by a source cell” and “from a source cell” are the same source cell or different source cells, and thus it is unclear whether “the source cell” refers to the source cell of “by a source cell” or “from a source cell”. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting this limitation as “receive an MBMS session provided by a source cell through Point-To-Multipoint (PTM) from the source cell”.
Claim 7 further recites "in response to determining that the CHO configuration comprises the MBS reception configuration and that the candidate cell provides the same MBS session". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “the same MBS session” is not previously defined in the claim. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting this limitation as "in response to determining that the CHO configuration comprises the MBS reception configuration and that the candidate cell provides the MBS session".
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 & 7 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US 20230422136)(herein after “Dai”) in view of Di Gorolamo et al. (US 20230388866)(herein after “Di Gorolamo”) and further in view of Akazawa et al. (US 2023/0388857)(herein after “Akazawa”).
Regarding Claim 1, Dai discloses a communication method performed by a user equipment in a mobile communication system for providing a multicast broadcast service (MBS) ([0001] discloses a wireless communication technology method and apparatus for multicast and broadcast services (MBS).), the communication method comprising the steps of:
receiving an MBS session provided by a source cell through Point-To-Multipoint (PTM) (Fig 6 & [0076] disclose a CHO procedure for multicast (i.e. PTM) mobility in connected mode where a UE is served by a source BS (i.e. the UE is receiving an MBS session provided by the source cell).);
receiving, from the source cell, a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message comprising a conditional handover (CHO) configuration regarding a candidate cell for CHO (Fig 6 & [0085]-[0086] disclose the UE receiving from a source BS radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message that includes CHO configuration information that includes MBS information associated with the CHO. [0083] discloses that MBS information associated with the CHO may indicate whether ongoing MBS session(s) is admitted by a candidate cell; whether ongoing MBS bearer(s) is admitted by the candidate cell; whether the ongoing MBS session(s) is kept in the candidate cell; and whether the ongoing MBS bearer(s) is kept in the candidate cell.);
determining whether the received CHO configuration comprises an MBS reception configuration configured to allow an MBS session provided by the candidate cell through PTM to be received (Fig 6 & [0085]-[0086] disclose the UE receiving from a source BS radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message that includes CHO configuration information that includes MBS information associated with the CHO. [0083] discloses that MBS information associated with the CHO may indicate whether ongoing MBS session(s) is admitted by a candidate cell; whether ongoing MBS bearer(s) is admitted by the candidate cell. [0089] discloses that the UE may prioritize candidate cell(s) which admit ongoing MBS sessions(s) (i.e. the UE would determine whether the CHO RRC reconfiguration message comprises MBS information indicating that an MBS session provided by a candidate cell may be admitted).);
determining, based on the MBS reception configuration, whether the candidate cell provides the MBS session provided by the source cell (Fig 6 & [0085]-[0086] disclose that the MBS information associated with the CHO may indicate whether ongoing MBS session(s) (i.e. in the source cell) is admitted by a candidate cell. [0054] reinforces that the “ongoing MBS sessions(s)” are indeed the sessions provided by the source cell by disclosing that MBS information associated with the CHO may include a list of cells where ongoing MBS session(s) provided in the current cell is also provided.); and
in response to determining that the received CHO configuration comprises the MBS reception configuration and to determining that the candidate cell provides the same MBS session, starting the MBS reception from the candidate cell using the MBS reception configuration (Fig 6 & [0088] discloses that, in response to determining that the received CHO RRC reconfiguration message comprises MBS information indicating the ongoing MBS session (i.e. the same MBS ongoing in the source cell) is admitted to the target cell, the UE executes the CHO (i.e. starts MBS reception from the candidate cell).).
Dai fails to disclose wherein the starting of MBS reception from the candidate cell is before performing the CHO, and the method further comprises: establishing a first Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) entity terminating a first MBS transmission path from the source cell; establishing a second PDCP entity terminating a second MBS transmission path from the candidate cell; and by the second PDCP entity; inquiring by the second PDCP entity, of the first PDCP entity about a PDCP sequence number of a received packet; and discarding the received packet in response to a determination that the received packet has already been received by the first PDCP entity.
However, Di Gorolamo teaches wherein the starting of MBS reception from the candidate cell is before performing the CHO (Fig 17 & [0236] discloses a UE receiving MBS PDCP PDUs (forwarded from a source gNB) from a target gNB using a PTM radio bearer configuration MRB1 for an MBS session before switching reception to MRB2 (i.e. performing a handover) in response to a Handover Request Ack message comprising the PTM radio bearer configuration for the MBS session provided by the target gNB.), and the method further comprises:
establishing a first Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) entity terminating a first MBS transmission path from the source cell (Fig 13 & [0231] disclose a first PDCP entity generating PDCP packets with sequence numbers 20-24 that are terminating through a first MBS transmission path from a source cell to a UE.);
establishing a second PDCP entity terminating a second MBS transmission path from the candidate cell (Fig 13 & [0231] disclose a second PDCP entity generating PDCP packets with sequence numbers 40-45 terminating through a second MBS transmission path from a target cell to a UE.); and
discarding the received packet in response to a determination that the received packet has already been received by the first PDCP entity (Fig 13 & [0246] disclose discarding of duplicate MBS PDUs received by the source gNB and target gNB in response to receiving RRC configuration information used to identify duplicate MBS PDUs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a communication method where, in response to a UE determining that the received CHO configuration comprises the MBS reception configuration and to determining that the candidate cell provides the same MBS session, the UE starts the MBS reception from the candidate cell using the MBS reception configuration, as disclosed by Dai, wherein the starting of MBS reception from the candidate cell is before performing the CHO, and further comprising establishing a first Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) entity terminating a first MBS transmission path from the source cell; establishing a second PDCP entity terminating a second MBS transmission path from the candidate cell; and discarding the received packet in response to a determination that the received packet has already been received by the first PDCP entity, as taught by Di Gorolamo. The motivation to do so would be to have a method for a UE to establish a first PDCP entity for MBS transmission at a source cell; establish a second PDCP entity for MBS transmission at a candidate cell; in response to the UE determining that a CHO configuration is for the same MBS session, begin MBS reception from the candidate cell prior to completing a HO from the source cell; determine that PDCP PDU packets have been redundantly received at the candidate cell based on the sequence number of the PDCP PDU packets being the same as the sequence number of PDCP PDU packets already received and decoded from the source cell, and discard the redundant packets in order to improve service continuity and address MBS packet progress gap issues between serving and candidate cells, and avoid decoding of redundant packets received by the candidate that have already been received and decoded from the source cell that can lead to delays and wastefully drain battery power at the UE, during handover in an MBMS system for multicast services.
Dai fails to disclose by the second PDCP entity; inquiring by the second PDCP entity, of the first PDCP entity about a PDCP sequence number of a received packet.
However, Akazawa further teaches by the second PDCP entity; inquiring by the second PDCP entity, of the first PDCP entity about a PDCP sequence number of a received packet (Fig 2 and [0032]-[0033] & [0037] disclose a base station 1 requesting a DDDS report from a base station 2, wherein both base stations include a PDCP layer (i.e. are PDCP entities). Fig 5 & [0047] disclose that the DDDS report includes a highest successfully delivered NR PDCP sequence number and a highest transmitted NR PDCP sequence number.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a communication method where a first PDCP entity terminates a first MBS transmission from a source cell; a second PDCP entity terminates a second MBS transmission from a candidate cell, as disclosed by Dai in view of Di Gorolamo, wherein, by the second PDCP entity; inquiring by the second PDCP entity, of the first PDCP entity about a PDCP sequence number of a received packet, as further taught by Akazawa. The motivation to do so would be to have a method where a candidate cell can request a highest successfully delivered or transmitted PDCP sequence number from a source cell so that the candidate cell can determine and refrain from transmission of duplicate PDCP PDUs that have the same sequence number as PDCP PDUs already transmitted or successfully delivered by the source cell to avoid unnecessary transmissions by the candidate cell that would waste valuable transmission resources.
Regarding Claim 7, Dai discloses a user equipment used in a mobile communication system for providing a multicast broadcast service (MBS) (Fig 1 & [0030] disclose a UE in a wireless communication system. [0049] disclose the UE receiving MBS services.), the user equipment comprising:
a receiver configured to receive an MBS session provided by a source cell through Point-To-Multipoint (PTM) from a source cell (Fig 6 & [0076] disclose a CHO procedure for multicast (i.e. PTM) mobility in connected mode where a UE is served by a source BS (i.e. a receiver in the UE is receiving an MBS session provided by the source cell). [0032] discloses that the UE includes a call receiver.), and
receive from the source cell, a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message comprising a conditional handover (CHO) configuration regarding a candidate cell for CHO (Fig 6 & [0085]-[0086] disclose the UE receiving from a source BS radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message that includes CHO configuration information that includes MBS information associated with the CHO. [0083] discloses that MBS information associated with the CHO may indicate whether ongoing MBS session(s) is admitted by a candidate cell; whether ongoing MBS bearer(s) is admitted by the candidate cell; whether the ongoing MBS session(s) is kept in the candidate cell; and whether the ongoing MBS bearer(s) is kept in the candidate cell.); and
a controller (Fig 10 & [0126] discloses the apparatus may include a processor (i.e. a controller).) configured to
determine whether the received CHO configuration comprises an MBS reception configuration configured to allow an MBS session provided by the candidate cell through PTM to be received (Fig 6 & [0085]-[0086] disclose the UE receiving from a source BS radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message that includes CHO configuration information that includes MBS information associated with the CHO. [0083] discloses that MBS information associated with the CHO may indicate whether ongoing MBS session(s) is admitted by a candidate cell; whether ongoing MBS bearer(s) is admitted by the candidate cell. [0089] discloses that the UE may prioritize candidate cell(s) which admit ongoing MBS sessions(s) (i.e. the UE would determine whether the CHO RRC reconfiguration message comprises MBS information indicating that an MBS session provided by a candidate cell may be admitted).),
determine, based on the MBS reception configuration, whether the candidate cell provides the MBS session provided by the source cell (Fig 6 & [0085]-[0086] disclose that the MBS information associated with the CHO may indicate whether ongoing MBS session(s) (i.e. in the source cell) is admitted by a candidate cell. [0054] reinforces that the “ongoing MBS sessions(s)” are indeed the sessions provided by the source cell by disclosing that MBS information associated with the CHO may include a list of cells where ongoing MBS session(s) provided in the current cell is also provided.), and
in response to determining that the received CHO configuration comprises the MBS reception configuration and that the candidate cell provides the same MBS session, start MBS reception from the candidate cell using an the MBS reception configuration (Fig 6 & [0088] discloses that, in response to determining that the received CHO RRC reconfiguration message comprises MBS information indicating the ongoing MBS session (i.e. the same MBS ongoing in the source cell) is admitted to the target cell, the UE executes the CHO (i.e. starts MBS reception from the candidate cell).).
Dai fails to disclose wherein the starting of MBS reception from the candidate cell is before performing the CHO; establish a first Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) entity terminating a first MBS transmission path from the source cell, establish a second PDCP entity terminating a second MBS transmission path from the candidate cell; and by the second PDCP entity, and the controller is configured to discard the received packet in response to a determination that the received packet has already been received by the first PDCP entity.
However, Di Gorolamo teaches wherein the starting of MBS reception from the candidate cell is before performing the CHO (Fig 17 & [0236] discloses a UE receiving MBS PDCP PDUs (forwarded from a source gNB) from a target gNB using a PTM radio bearer configuration MRB1 for an MBS session before switching reception to MRB2 (i.e. performing a handover) in response to a Handover Request Ack message comprising the PTM radio bearer configuration for the MBS session provided by the target gNB.); and
establish a first Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) entity terminating a first MBS transmission path from the source cell (Fig 13 & [0231] disclose a first PDCP entity generating PDCP packets with sequence numbers 20-24 that are terminating through a first MBS transmission path from a source cell to a UE.),
establish a second PDCP entity terminating a second MBS transmission path from the candidate cell; and by the second PDCP entity (Fig 13 & [0231] disclose a second PDCP entity generating PDCP packets with sequence numbers 40-45 terminating through a second MBS transmission path from a target cell to a UE.),
the controller is configured to discard the received packet in response to a determination that the received packet has already been received by the first PDCP entity (Fig 13 & [0246] disclose discarding of duplicate MBS PDUs received by the source gNB and target gNB in response to receiving RRC configuration information used to identify duplicate MBS PDUs. Fig 10 & [0128] discloses that the processor may implement the methods of the UE (i.e. the apparatus).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a user equipment (UE), comprising a receiver and a controller, used in a mobile communication system, provide a multicast broadcast service (MBS) wherein the controller is configured to, in response to determining that the received CHO configuration comprises the MBS reception configuration and to determining that the candidate cell provides the same MBS session, start the MBS reception from the candidate cell using the MBS reception configuration, as disclosed by Dai, wherein the starting of MBS reception from the candidate cell is before performing the CHO, and further comprising establishing a first Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) entity terminating a first MBS transmission path from the source cell; establishing a second PDCP entity terminating a second MBS transmission path from the candidate cell; and discarding the received packet in response to a determination that the received packet has already been received by the first PDCP entity, as taught by Di Gorolamo. The motivation to do so would be to have a controller in a UE establish a first PDCP entity for MBS transmission at a source cell; establish a second PDCP entity for MBS transmission at a candidate cell; in response to determining that a CHO configuration is for the same MBS session, begin MBS reception from the candidate cell prior to completing a HO from the source cell; determine that PDCP PDU packets have been redundantly received from the candidate cell based on the sequence number of the PDCP PDU packets being the same as the sequence number of PDCP PDU packets already received and decoded from the source cell, and discard the redundant packets in order to improve service continuity and address MBS packet progress gap issues between serving and candidate cells and avoid decoding of redundant packets received by the candidate that have already been received and decoded from the source cell that can lead to delays and wastefully drain battery power at the UE, during handover in an MBMS system for multicast services.
Dai fails to disclose by the second PDCP entity; the second PDCP entity is configured to inquire of the first PDCP entity about a PDCP sequence number of a received packet.
However, Akazawa further teaches by the second PDCP entity; the second PDCP entity is configured to inquire of the first PDCP entity about a PDCP sequence number of a received packet (Fig 2 and [0032]-[0033] & [0037] disclose a base station 1 requesting a DDDS report from a base station 2, wherein both base stations include a PDCP layer (i.e. are PDCP entities). Fig 5 & [0047] disclose that the DDDS report includes a highest successfully delivered NR PDCP sequence number and a highest transmitted NR PDCP sequence number.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a UE in a mobile communication system where a first PDCP entity terminates a first MBS transmission from a source cell; a second PDCP entity terminates a second MBS transmission from a candidate cell, as disclosed by Dai in view of Di Gorolamo, wherein, by the second PDCP entity; the second PDCP entity is configured to inquire of the first PDCP entity about a PDCP sequence number of a received packet, as further taught by Akazawa. The motivation to do so would be to have a UE in a mobile communication system where a candidate cell can request a highest successfully delivered or transmitted PDCP sequence number from a source cell so that the candidate cell can determine and refrain from transmission of duplicate PDCP PDUs that have the same sequence number as PDCP PDUs already transmitted or successfully delivered by the source cell to avoid unnecessary transmissions by the candidate cell that would waste valuable transmission resources.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419