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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 17 June 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 7, 12, 18, 20 and 26 are amended.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 22, 23 and 25 are canceled.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18-21, 24, 26 and 27 are currently pending.
The outstanding objection to the drawings is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to the specification.
The outstanding objection to Claim 18 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claim.
The outstanding respective rejections of Claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), as well as the rejections of Claims 13, 19, 21 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103, are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 7, 12 and 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 June 2026 regarding the Qi and Xu references have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Claim 7 and the Qi reference, Applicant states “At most, Qi teaches determining a delivery mode based on a provided capability rather than determining whether a UE supports both multicast and unicast and providing both PTM and PTP configuration parameters.” The Office respectfully disagrees. The Office first notes that the claim recites “determining, by the DU, based on whether the UE supports multicast configuration, whether to include, in a DU configuration message for the UE to utilize to receive the DL MBS data from the DU, point-to-point (PTP) configuration parameters or point-to-multipoint (PTM) configuration parameters”. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language encompasses the DU providing information that allow the UE to receive DL MBS data, either via PTP or PTM. The claim language is silent as to any particular steps the UE takes to utilize the received parameters. Further, the manner by which the DU determines that the UE supports multicast configuration is likewise not further detailed in the claim language. Accordingly, Qi’s disclosure, at paragraph 0156, where the DU may then use information like UE connection status together with other information at DU, such as resource utilization or UE capability/MBS session requirement on UE capability (i.e., a determination as to whether the UE supports multicast configuration), to determine a delivery mode for each of the UEs, and deliver its decision to the CU, reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as currently drafted. Regarding Claim 12 and the Xu reference, Applicant states “Applicant respectfully contends that configuring a BWP at the base station differs from the UE receiving PTM configuration parameters and PTP configuration parameters.” The Office respectfully disagrees. As disclosed in Figure 13 and paragraph 0201 of Xu as cited in the rejection, the UE is configured to receive MBMS and/or unicast transmissions by the RAN/gNB in response to the RAN/gNB determining the suitable BWP to use (e.g., either MBMS+unicast, MBMS-specific). Therefore, Xu clearly discloses the UE receives the configuration, along with corresponding parameters, related to either PTM (MBMS) or PTP (unicast).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7, 12 and 20 related to the newly added G-RNTI limitation have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0254666), hereinafter Qi, in view of Prasad et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0348375), hereinafter Prasad.
Regarding Claim 7, Qi discloses a method for managing transmission of multicast and/or broadcast services (MBS), implemented in a distributed unit (DU) of a distributed base station that includes the DU and a central unit (CU) (Figure 1 – gNB 120 comprises CU 122 and DUs 124 and 126), the method comprising:
receiving, by the DU from a CU, a CU-to-DU message requesting configuration parameters for a user equipment (UE) to utilize to receive downlink (DL) MBS data associated with an MBS session (paragraph 0156 – the CU may provide a UE ID list in a signaling message to the DU; paragraphs 0117-0153 also list a number of parameters that may be provided to determine delivery modes to the UE, where paragraph 0156 indicates that the DU makes the decision on delivery modes);
determining, by the DU, based on whether the UE supports multicast configuration, whether to include, in a DU configuration message for the UE to utilize to receive the DL MBS data from the DU, point-to-point (PTP) configuration parameters or point-to-multipoint (PTM) configuration parameters (paragraph 0156 - The DU may then use information like UE connection status together with other information at DU, such as resource utilization or UE capability/MBS session requirement on UE capability, to determine a delivery mode for each of the UEs);
generating, by the DU, in accordance with the determining, the DU configuration message (paragraph 0156 – the DU determines delivery mode and resource information and returns configuration information); and
transmitting, by the DU to the CU, the DU configuration message (paragraph 0156 – the configuration message is returned to the CU by the DU).
However, Qi does not disclose the generating includes: in response to determining that the UE supports multicast configuration and determining the UE supports unicast configuration, including the PTM configuration parameters and the PTP configuration parameters in the DU configuration message, wherein the PTM configuration parameters include a group radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI). In an analogous art, Prasad discloses this. Specifically, Prasad discloses a RAN split architecture comprising a CU and DU, where a device obtains configuration related to possible search spaces for multicast/broadcast service and unicast service, such as receiving one or more RNTIs (e.g., G-RNTI for multicast/PTM, C-RNTI for unicast/PTP, etc.) (paragraph 0072). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Qi and Prasad. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow UEs receiving both unicast and multicast traffic to perform blind decoding of the search spaces (refer to paragraphs 0055, 0069 and 0071-0072 of Prasad).
Regarding Claim 9, Qi discloses in response to determining that the UE does not support multicast configuration, including the PTP configuration parameters in the DU configuration message (paragraph 0156 – the DU returns parameters for PTP delivery mode).
Regarding Claim 10, Qi discloses receiving, by the DU from the CU, a message including the DU configuration message from the CU (Figure 5 at step 3 – the MBS radio resource configuration is transmitted to the UE; as shown in Figure 3, PDUs originating from the CU bound for the UE must pass through the DU); and transmitting, by the DU to the UE, the message (Figure 5 at step 3 – the MBS radio resource configuration is transmitted to the UE).
Claims 12, 16, 18, 20, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0322288), hereinafter Xu, in view of Prasad.
Regarding Claim 20, Xu discloses an apparatus, operating as a user equipment (UE) (Figure 3 – UE 106), configured to manage transmission of multicast and/or broadcast services (MBS), the apparatus comprising:
a transceiver (Figure 5 – RF 540 of the UE comprises Tx and Rx circuitry (542 and 544); and
processing hardware (Figure 3 – processor 302) configured to:
transmit, to a radio access network (RAN) node, an uplink message including information indicating UE support for at least one of point-to-point (PTP) communication or point-to-multipoint (PTM) communication for MBS (Figure 13 at 1308 – the UE transmits a UE capability message indicating support for MBMS (PTM) and/or unicast (PTP) reception of MBMS packets (see paragraph 0201));
receive, from the RAN node, at least one of PTP configuration parameters or PTM configuration parameters based on the information included in the uplink message (paragraphs 0199-0201 – the RAN node provides configurations for either MBMS or unicast based on the indicated support); and
receive MBS data for an MBS session in accordance with the at least one of the PTP configuration parameters or the PTM configuration parameters (paragraph 0201 – the configuration is used to receive MBMS and/or unicast transmissions), wherein receiving the at least one of the PTP configuration parameters or the PTM configuration parameters includes: receiving the PTP configuration parameters (paragraphs 0198-0199); and receiving the PTM configuration parameters (paragraphs 0198-0199 – the UE is configured with parameters according to both MBMS and unicast communication).
However, Xu does not disclose the receiving the MBS data for the MBS session is at least in accordance with the PTM configuration parameters, the PTM configuration parameters include a group radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI). In an analogous art, Prasad discloses this. Specifically, Prasad discloses a RAN split architecture comprising a CU and DU, where a device obtains configuration related to possible search spaces for multicast/broadcast service and unicast service, such as receiving one or more RNTIs (e.g., G-RNTI for multicast/PTM, C-RNTI for unicast/PTP, etc.) (paragraph 0072). The PTM transmissions are utilized to effectively transmit data to support MBS (paragraph 0047). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xu and Prasad. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow UEs receiving both unicast and multicast traffic to perform blind decoding of the search spaces (refer to paragraphs 0055, 0069 and 0071-0072 of Prasad).
Claim 12 is a method claim comprising the same steps performed by the apparatus of Claim 20. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 20.
Regarding Claims 16 and 24, Xu discloses the information indicating the UE support for the at least one of the PTP communication or the PTM communication indicates the UE support for the PTM communication and the UE support for the PTP communication (Paragraph 0198 – UE indicates support for MBMS and unicast reception).
Regarding Claims 18 and 26, Xu discloses the receiving the MBS data for the MBS session is in accordance with the PTP configuration parameters and the PTM configuration parameters (paragraph 0201 – the configuration is used to receive MBMS and unicast transmissions).
Claims 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Prasad, as applied to Claims 12 and 20 above, and further in view of Qi. The combination of Xu and Prasad discloses the limitations of Claims 12 and 20, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the information indicating the UE support for the at least one of the PTP communication or the PTM communication indicates the UE support for the PTM communication and refrains from indicating the UE support for the PTP communication. In an analogous art, Qi discloses this. Specifically, Qi discloses determining delivery modes for UEs according to their capabilities (i.e., support of PTM but not support of PTP). The allocated resources and corresponding configuration are based on the indicated capability (see paragraph 0156). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xu / Prasad and Qi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to effect delivery mode switching when needed without involving the application layer (see paragraph 0003 of Qi).
Claims 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Prasad, as applied to Claims 12 and 20 above, and further in view of Ronneke et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0309189), hereinafter Ronneke. The combination of Xu and Prasad discloses the limitations of Claims 12 and 20, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose performing, by the UE with a core network (CN) via the RAN node, an MBS session join procedure for the MBS session after transmitting the uplink message. In an analogous art, Ronneke discloses this. Specifically, Ronneke discloses performing an MBS session join procedure as part of a determination as to whether certain delivery modes are supported for the MBS (refer to Figure 12 and paragraph 0199-0200). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xu and Ronneke. One would have been motivated to do so in order to minimize traffic loss (paragraph 0093 of Ronneke).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights