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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 1, 2026 with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues that neither Nebat et al. nor Rudolf discloses the claimed relevancy period because according to Applicant’s paragraph 39 of the specification, the relevancy period is fundamentally different from transmission timing concepts, and each set of information has an associated relevancy period that indicates when that information is relevant to receiving devices. Applicant further argues that the relevancy period is thus a property of the information content itself, and it indicates when the information is useful to receives, not when it can be transmitted.
Examiner argues that Applicant’s paragraph 39 is not recited in the claimed invention. The claimed invention only requires that a relevancy period is determined for each of a plurality of sets of information. The claims do not specifically recite a relevancy period that indicates when each set of information is relevant to receiving devices. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding paragraph 39 do not appear to be commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues that Nebat’s sub-intervals and Rudolf’s BTIs are transmission time slots that apply uniformly to all data being transmitted, and that they are not properties of individual sets of information.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues that neither Nebat nor Rudolf teaches the recited selection process because they do not evaluate whether particular information content is relevant at a given time and selecting information for inclusion in a packet based on that evaluation.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues that the motivation to combine Nebat and Rudolf does not appear to provide a motivation to determine relevancy periods for information content or to select information based on those relevancy periods.
Each of Applicant’s arguments (b, c, d) hinge on the meaning of a relevancy period being a time period at which information is relevant to a receiving device. These arguments apply to Applicant’s paragraph 39, but they are not commensurate with the scope of claims 1 and 11, which do not recite that a relevancy period is a time period at which information is relevant to a receiving device. Claims 1 and 11 simply recite determining a relevancy period for each set of information and selecting sets of information based on relevancy periods. In Nebat and Rudolf, a relevancy period corresponds to a time interval of transmission of data, and the recited determining process and selection process correspond to allocation of time intervals for transmission.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 remain rejected as outlined in the non-final rejection dated May 19, 2026).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nebat et al. (US 2017/0332351) in view of Rudolf (US 2019/0349976).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Nebat et al. disclose a wireless base station (Claims 1 and 7, base station; Figures 1 and 3, base station 110) comprising:
an electronic processor (Claim 7, base station comprising…a processor…; Figure 3, controller 330); and
a transceiver coupled to the electronic processor (Claim 7, base station comprising: an interface…; Figure 3, radio interface 340 coupled to controller 330);
wherein the electronic processor is configured to:
for each of a plurality of sets of information, determine a relevancy period (Claim 1, …receiving, by the base station, information for a multicast broadcast region indicating a pattern of sub-intervals [relevancy periods] within a time divided interval and indicating resource information for use in broadcasting multicast broadcast service data…; Paragraph 110, number of segment allocation patterns describing each of the substreams [sets of information]…a single allocation pattern definition for most substreams);
for a first broadcast time, generate a broadcast packet that includes a set of information from the plurality of sets of information based on the relevancy periods (Claim 1, receiving, by the base station, a multicast broadcast data stream [set of information]; and broadcasting, by the base station, the multicast broadcast data stream in at least one of the pattern of sub-intervals; Claim 7, receive a multicast broadcast data stream…broadcast the multicast broadcast data stream in at least one of the pattern of sub-intervals; Paragraph 150, When the transmission time [broadcast time] of a frame arrives, all synchronized base stations may generate and transmit); and
transmit, via the transceiver, the broadcast packet (Claim 1, broadcasting, by the base station, the multicast broadcast data stream in at least one of the pattern of sub-intervals using the indicate resource information; Claim 7, broadcast the multicast broadcast data stream in at least one of the pattern of sub-intervals using the indicated resource information).
Nebat et al. do not disclose the following limitations that are disclosed by Rudolf: the broadcast packet including sets of information selected based on the relevancy periods (Rudolf, Paragraph 112 and figure 4, MBMS data packet stream 400 carrying multiple MBMS services 402, 404, 406, 408 [sets of information]; Paragraph 113, Different MBMS services may be multiplexed into a DL broadcast/multicast (B/M) shared channel in a given subframe; Paragraphs 145-146, An eNB may configure (e.g., well-defined) time intervals, which may be referred to as Autonomously Adjustable Common (AAC) TTI allocation, during which an eNB may transmit MBMS data…An AAC TTI allocation period for potential MBMS (and/or other) transmissions may have a duration…The AAC TTI allocation periods may repeat over time. The configuration may be used to derive a subset of times during an AAC TTI allocation period that may be used for potential MBMS (and/or other) transmission. For example, the configuration may indicate that for AAC TTI allocation pattern period 806, 9 of the 15 BTIs [relevancy periods] may be available for MBMS (and/or other) transmissions. The configuration may define one or more rules used to define which of the 9 BTIs correspond to the BTIs when a transmission can occur).
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 Nebat et al. with the cited disclosure from Rudolf in order to allow for improvements to inter-frequency reception of MBMS content (Rudolf, Paragraph 77).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Nebat et al. in view of Rudolf disclose wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: generate a modified broadcast packet based on the broadcast packet (Nebat et al., Paragraph 150, When the transmission time [broadcast time] of a frame arrives, all synchronized base stations may generate and transmit) and a second broadcast time (Rudolf, Paragraph 179, MBMS transmission timing may refer, for example, to one or more (e.g., a combination) of the following: an MBMS transmission starting time instant, an MBMS transmission duration or interval, an MBMS on-duration or transmit off-duration, and/or an MBMS radio resource allocation (e.g., AAC TTI allocation); Figure 8, multiple AAC TTI periods [includes second broadcast time]); and transmit, via the transceiver, the broadcast packet (Nebat et al., Paragraph 150, When the transmission time [broadcast time] of a frame arrives, all synchronized base stations may generate and transmit).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Nebat et al. in view of Rudolf disclose wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: for the first broadcast time, generate the broadcast packet (Nebat et al., Paragraph 150, When the transmission time [broadcast time] of a frame arrives, all synchronized base stations may generate and transmit) that includes sets of information selected from the plurality of sets of information based on the relevancy periods (Rudolf, Paragraph 112 and figure 4, MBMS data packet stream 400 carrying multiple MBMS services 402, 404, 406, 408 [sets of information]; Paragraph 113, Different MBMS services may be multiplexed into a DL broadcast/multicast (B/M) shared channel in a given subframe; Paragraphs 145-146, An eNB may configure (e.g., well-defined) time intervals, which may be referred to as Autonomously Adjustable Common (AAC) TTI allocation, during which an eNB may transmit MBMS data…An AAC TTI allocation period for potential MBMS (and/or other) transmissions may have a duration…The AAC TTI allocation periods may repeat over time. The configuration may be used to derive a subset of times during an AAC TTI allocation period that may be used for potential MBMS (and/or other) transmission. For example, the configuration may indicate that for AAC TTI allocation pattern period 806, 9 of the 15 BTIs [relevancy periods] may be available for MBMS (and/or other) transmissions. The configuration may define one or more rules used to define which of the 9 BTIs correspond to the BTIs when a transmission can occur) and a rolling relevance window (Nebat et al., Claims 5 and 11, wherein the pattern of sub-intervals repeats each time divided interval [rolling relevance window]; Rudolf, Paragraphs 145-146, The AAC TTI allocation periods may repeat over time).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Rudolf discloses wherein a duration for the rolling relevance window is based on a desired number of sets of information per broadcast packet (Paragraphs 145-146, the configuration may indicate that for AAC TTI allocation pattern period 806 [rolling relevance window], 9 of the 15 BTIs may be available for MBMS (and/or other) transmissions. The configuration may define one or more rules used to define which of the 9 BTIs correspond to the BTIs when a transmission can occur).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 16-18 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 2 and 12, the prior art does not disclose or adequately suggest that for each set of information, it is determined whether broadcast time occurs prior to or during the relevancy period and including the set of information in the broadcast packet when either condition is satisfied; regarding claims 4 and 14, the prior art does not disclose or adequately suggest that for each set of information in the broadcast packet, it is determined whether the relevancy period expires prior to broadcast time and removing the set of information from the broadcast time upon expiration; regarding claims 6 (with further dependent claims 7 and 8) and 16 (with further dependent claims 17 and 18), the prior art does not disclose or adequately suggest that for each set of information, it is determined whether broadcast time occurs prior to or during the relevancy period, and if so, it is determined whether the relevancy period occurs within the rolling relevance window, and if so, the set of information is included in the broadcast packet; regarding claims 10 and 20, the prior art does not close or adequately suggest that the number of sets of information per broadcast packet is based on an average single packet reliability or a radiofrequency environment responsiveness.
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 OTIS L THOMPSON, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Chirag G. Shah can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/OTIS L THOMPSON, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights