DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed 5 March 2024. Claims 20-34 are pending in this application.
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 .
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 21, 22, 24-31, and 34 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.
For Claim 21, “the first MBS service provision area” appears to lack antecedent basis.
For Claim 24, “the coordination and the synchronization” should probably be corrected to ---the coordination or the synchronization--- because these are listed as alternatives in the independent claim. Claim 24 would be indefinite in the case of only one of the alternatives in the independent claim.
For Claim 27, the claim requires two Dus and would therefore be indefinite in the case of “the at least one DU” being only one DU.
For Claims 29 and 30, “the data packet” should probably be corrected to ---the respective data packet--- because it is not clear that this is the same data packet.
for Claim 34, it is not clear what is meant by “through a central unit”.
Remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 34, as understood in light of the rejection under 35 USC 112 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (WO 2021/062778, citing to the translation provided herewith).
For Claim 34, Huang teaches a method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving at least one of coordination/synchronization information, a multicast/broadcast service (MBS) service identity information or cell list information from a distributed unit (DU) (see underlined portions on p. 2-4 of the translation); and
receiving a data packet based on the MBS service in an MBS provision area (see underlined portions on p. 8-11 of the translation; items 201 and 202),
wherein, in case that the MBS provision area includes a plurality of DUs, a transmission time of the data packet is determined to be the same in the plurality of DUs through a central unit (CU) (see underlined portions on p. 8-11 of the translation; items 201 and 202).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 20-25 and 32-33, as understood in light of rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong (US 2022/0408228) in view of Toeda et al. (US 2022/0200733).
For Claims 20 and 33, Xiong teaches a method performed by a central unit (CU) in a wireless communication system, and a central unit (CU) in a wireless communication system, the CU comprising: at least one transceiver; at least one processor; and at least one memory operatively connected to the at least one processor and configured to store instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform a specific operation (see paragraphs 12-14: hardware); the method comprising:
receiving, by the CU, a first message for a multicast broadcast service (MBS) session start request or MBS session update request from an access and mobility management function (AMF) (see paragraphs 273: CU and DU; 284-285, 310: AMF session start request; 286, 311: reception by CU);
performing at least one of coordination, in case that an MBS provision area includes a plurality of DUs based on the MBS provision request information (see paragraph 286: CU selects Dus);
transmitting a second message for context setup request including information related to MBS provision to each of the at least one DU (see paragraphs 54, 287: context process, session establishment request); and
receiving a third message for context setup response including information related to MBS provision from each of the at least one DU (see paragraph 287).
Xiong as applied above is not explicit as to, but Toeda teaches obtaining, by the CU, reference time information from each of at least one distributed unit (DU) (see paragraphs 54, 77); and
performing coordination or synchronization through the reference time information obtained from each of the at least one DU (see paragraphs 30-32, 36, 41)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use reference time information as in Toeda when establishing MBS session services as in Xiong. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of synchronizing the services within the MBS service area.
For Claim 21, Xiong further teaches the method, wherein the first message comprises at least one of a service identity identifying a first MBS service or a list of cells specifying the first MBS service provision area (see paragraph 285).
For Claim 22, Xiong further teaches the method, wherein the first message is transferred from the AMF to the CU based on at least one of a multimedia broadcast and multicast service (MBMS) session start request message or an MBMS session update request message (see paragraphs 284-285).
For Claim 23, Xiong as applied above is not explicit as to, but Toeda teaches the method, wherein the reference time information received from each of the at least one DU comprises at least one of a system frame number (SFN), a subframe index or slot information (see paragraphs 73-74, 77).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the values as in Toeda when establishing MBS session services as in Xiong. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of synchronizing the services within the MBS service area.
For Claim 24, Xiong as applied above is not explicit as to, but Toeda teaches the method, wherein the coordination and the synchronization are performed using at least one of the SFN, the subframe index or the slot (see paragraphs 73-74).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the values as in Toeda when establishing MBS session services as in Xiong. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of synchronizing the services within the MBS service area.
For Claim 25, Xiong further teaches the method, wherein the information related to MBS provision transmitted from the CU to each of the at least one DU comprises at least one of a time indication, a service identity or a list of cells (see paragraphs 287-288).
For Claim 32, Xiong further teaches the method, wherein the information related to MBS provision transmitted to each of the at least one DU is transmitted to terminals respectively connected to the at least one DU (see paragraphs 53, 66, 82, 166-167, Figure 2: information transmission to UEs is a known aspect of MBS services).
Claim(s) 26-30, as understood in light of rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong (US 2022/0408228) and Toeda et al. (US 2022/0200733) as applied to claims 20 and 23-25 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (WO 2021/062778, citing the translation provided herewith).
For Claim 26, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Huang teaches the method, wherein each of the at least one DU determines a transmission time of a data packet for a first MBS service based on the received information related to MBS provision (see underlined portions on p. 8-11 of the translation; items 201 and 202).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to determine the transmission time as in Huang when providing synchronized MBS services as in Xiong and Toeda. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using available information to synchronize the services.
For Claim 27, while Xiong teaches plural DUs (see paragraph 286), the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Huang teaches the method, wherein, in case that the CU receives first reference time information from a first DU among the at least one DU and receives second reference time information from a second DU among the at least one DU, the CU performs at least one of the coordination or the synchronization such that the first DU and the second DU simultaneously transmit data packets for the first MBS service through the first reference time information and the second reference time information (see underlined portions on p. 8-11 of the translation; items 201 and 202).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to determine the transmission time as in Huang when providing synchronized MBS services as in Xiong and Toeda. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using available information to synchronize the services.
For Claim 28, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Huang teaches the method, wherein the CU transmits first time indication information to the first DU and transmits second time indication information to the second DU based on at least one of the coordination or the synchronization (see underlined portions on p. 8-11 of the translation; items 201 and 202).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to determine the transmission time as in Huang when providing synchronized MBS services as in Xiong and Toeda. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using available information to synchronize the services.
For Claim 29, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Huang teaches the method, wherein the first DU determines a transmission time of the data packet for the first MBS service based on the first time indication information, and the second DU determines a transmission time of the data packet for the first MBS service based on the second time indication information (see underlined portions on p. 8-11 of the translation; items 201 and 202).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to determine the transmission time as in Huang when providing synchronized MBS services as in Xiong and Toeda. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using available information to synchronize the services.
For Claim 30, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Huang teaches the method, wherein the transmission time of the data packet by the first DU is determined to be the same as the transmission time of the data packet by the second DU (see underlined portions on p. 8-11 of the translation; items 201 and 202; the Dus are in sync).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to determine the transmission time as in Huang when providing synchronized MBS services as in Xiong and Toeda. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using available information to synchronize the services.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong (US 2022/0408228), Toeda et al. (US 2022/0200733), and Huang et al. (WO 2021/062778, citing the translation provided herewith) as applied to claims 20 and 23-24, and 27-29 above, and further in view of Qi et al. (US 2023/0254666).
For Claim 31, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Qi teaches the method, wherein the first time indication information and the second time indication information are different (see paragraphs 97-100: CU signaling to DU for setup; paragraphs 34-36, 39, 67: UE specific delivery modes necessarily indicated differently to DUs).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide different indicates to the different DUs as in Qi when setting up different DUs as in Xiong, Toeda, and Huang. The motivation would be to allow for adjustments to transmission parameters depending on the different UE environments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhu et al. (US 2022/0337367) teaches a system for synchronizing the transmission of MBMS data over a DU group. DI Girolamo et al. (US 2023/0276470) teaches a system for a CU to synchronize transmission by DUs within a MBMS transmission area.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 12/17/2025
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466