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 Amendments and Arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Claims, Applicant’s arguments filed 06/09/2026 in view of amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objections to Claims have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 06/09/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 06/09/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive at least in view of reasons set forth below.
On page 11 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
From above, in Pham, the paging message includes various types of information, among which, however indication information indicating that a terminal device receives a multicast service in an inactive state is NOT included. Therefore, Pham also fails to disclose the feature "wherein said sending the first indication information comprises: sending the first indication information carried in a paging signaling" as recited in current claim 1.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pham discloses in ¶0012, “[a]ccording to a first aspect of the present disclosure, a method for providing multicast and broadcast services, MBS, to one or more User Equipments, UEs, in a wireless communication network is provided. The method is performed by a network node in the wireless communication network. The method comprises determining the one or more UEs in one of: a Radio Resource Control, RRC, IDLE state and a RRC INACTIVE state. The method comprises transmitting a paging message indicating a Point-To-Multipoint, PTM, configuration information to be acquired by the determined one or more UEs for enabling reception of MBS data in one of the RRC IDLE state and the RRC INACTIVE state.” (Emphasis added.)
As clearly seen from the above, Pham discloses, sending the first indication information carried in a paging signaling, as currently claimed since “the paging message indicating of enabling reception of MBS data in RRC inactive state to UEs” of Pham is interpreted as “the sending the first indication information for the terminal device to receive the multicast service in the inactive state”, as claimed.
On page 12 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
Accordingly, current claims 11 and 24 corresponding to current claim 1, current claims 2 and 4-10 dependent upon current claim 1, current claims 13, 15-16, 19 and 25 dependent upon current claim 11, and current claim 26 dependent upon current claim 24 are patentable over Li in view of Fujishiro, Xie, Pham, Taher and Zhou as well.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Since claims 11 and 24 recite similar features to claim 1 without further patentable features, claims 11 and 24 are unpatentable in view of the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Further, since claims 1, 11 and 24 are unpatentable over the cited references of record as set forth above, patentability of other dependent claims should be determined based on the claimed limitations recited thereon, rather than their respective independent claims. The dependent claims are also unpatentable in view of the corresponding cited references of records as set forth below.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 15-16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (WO 2021077434 A1)1 in view of Pham et al (US Publication No. 2023/0239661 A1)2.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses, a method for sending a multicast service in an inactive state [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0213-0214, a method for base station sending multicast service in an inactive state], comprising:
sending, by a network device, first indication information and second indication information [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0213-0214, the network device sends a connection release message including first indication information used to indicate that the first terminal device is allowed to receive the multicast service after entering the inactive state], wherein the first indication information indicates that a terminal device receives the multicast service in the inactive state [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0213-0214, the network device sends a connection release message including first indication information used to indicate that the first terminal device is allowed to receive the multicast service after entering the inactive state], and the second indication information indicates a condition that requires to be met for the terminal device to receive the multicast service in the inactive state [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0221, the network device sends a a connection release message carrying indication information of a multicast parameter validity area (i.e., condition that requires to be met for the terminal device to receive the multicast service”); further see “when the first terminal device belongs to the multicast parameter validity area when entering the new cell, the first terminal device continues to receive the multicast service”]; and
sending, by the network device, data of the multicast service [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0213-0214, the first terminal device (or network device) receives (or sends) the multicast service from the network device (or to the first terminal device)].
Although Li discloses, “sending the first indication information” as set forth above, Li does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), sending the first indication
information carried in a paging signaling.
However, Pham discloses, sending the first indication information carried in a paging signaling [¶0012, transmitting a paging message indicating a Point-To-Multipoint, PTM, configuration information to be acquired by the determined one or more UEs for enabling reception of MBS data in one of the RRC IDLE state and the RRC INACTIVE state; further see ¶0103-0104].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Li with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Pham to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Pham into the system of Li would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to reduce signaling overhead and power consumption by transition the UE to an inactive state, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Pham discloses, the method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Li discloses, “the first indication information” and “the second indication information” as set forth above, Li does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized), but Pham discloses, indication information has a correspondence with an identifier of at least one type of multicast service [¶0104, the paging message comprises one or more of: a service identifier, ID, for the MBS, a session ID for the MBS, (i.e., type of MBS service)].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Li with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Pham to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Pham into the system of Li would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling user equipment to quickly identify which multicast service the message refers for efficient service selection, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Pham discloses, the method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Li further discloses, wherein said sending the second indication information comprises: sending the second indication information carried in an RRC signaling [¶0198, after receiving an RRC connection setup message, the terminal device sets up an RRC signaling connection (at step 1001); further see ¶0213-0214, the network device sends a connection release message; further see ¶0221, the connection release message may further carry indication information of a multicast parameter validity area (i.e., second indication information); note that the connection release message is a RRC signaling since the RRC signaling connection has been set up at step 1001].
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses, the method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Li does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and underlined limitations), but Pham discloses, sending the first indication information carried in paging [¶0012, transmitting a paging message indicating a Point-To-Multipoint, PTM, configuration information to be acquired by the determined one or more UEs for enabling reception of MBS data in one of the RRC IDLE state and the RRC INACTIVE state].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Li with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Pham to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Pham into the system of Li would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to reduce signaling overhead and power consumption by transition the UE to an inactive state, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Pham discloses, the method according to claim 6 as set forth above.
Although Li discloses, for a terminal device in the inactive state, sending the first indication information [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0213-0214, for the first terminal device in the inactive state, the network device sends a connection release message including first indication information used to indicate that the first terminal device is allowed to receive the multicast service after entering the inactive state] . . . in response to there being data of the multicast service that needs to be transmitted [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0213-0214, note that from “transmitting the MBS data to the determined one or more UEs using a PTM configuration indicated by the PTM configuration information”, it is implied that the network device has data of the MBS service that needs to be transmitted], Li does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and underlined limitations), but Pham discloses, for a terminal device in the inactive state, sending the first indication information carried in paging [¶0012, transmitting a paging message indicating a Point-To-Multipoint, PTM, configuration information to be acquired by the determined one or more UEs for enabling reception of MBS data in one of the RRC IDLE state and the RRC INACTIVE state], wherein the paging further comprises an identifier of the multicast service [¶0015, the paging message comprises a service identifier (ID) for the MBS].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Pham in the system of Li for similar rationales set forth above in claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Pham discloses, the method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Li further discloses, wherein the second indication information comprises some or all parameters relevant with the condition [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0221, the network device sends a a connection release message carrying indication information of a multicast parameter validity area].
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 merely different from claim 1 without additional patentable features. Thus, claim 11 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Pham discloses, the method according to claim 11 as set forth above.
Li further discloses, wherein said receiving the second indication information comprises: receiving an RRC signaling in a connected state [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0221, the network device (or the first terminal device) sends (or receives) a connection release message to the first terminal device (or from the network device) carrying indication information of a multicast parameter validity area (i.e., second indication information); note that the connection release message is transmitted when the first terminal device is in a connected state], wherein the RRC signaling comprises the second indication information [¶0198 and ¶0213-0214, note that the connection release message is a RRC signaling since the RRC signaling connection has been set up at step 1001].
Regarding claim 16, Li in view of Pham discloses, the method according to claim 11 as set forth above.
Li further discloses, wherein following receiving the first indication information and the second indication information [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0213-0214, after receiving the connection release including the first indication information and the second indication information , the method further comprises:
entering the inactive state [¶0215, the first terminal device enters the inactive state]; and
saving parameter configuration for reception of the multicast service acquired during the connected state [¶0215, reserves the first multicast configuration parameters; further see ¶0199, the network device sends a first multicast configuration parameter to the first terminal device through the RRC connection that is set up].
Regarding claim 24, Li discloses, a terminal device [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0213-0214, first terminal device], comprising a memory [¶0340-0342, memory] and a processor [¶0340-0342, processor], wherein the memory stores one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising computer instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to [¶0340-0342, the memory storing program, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform action(s)].
Thus, claim 24 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 11.
Claims 13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (WO 2021077434 A1) ) in view of Pham et al (US Publication No. 2023/0239661 A1) and further in view of Fujishiro et al (US Publication No. 2023/0262423 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Pham discloses, the method according to claim 11 as set forth above.
Although Li discloses, “the first indication information configures to receive the multicast service in the inactive state” as set forth above, Li in view of Pham does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and underlined limitations), but Fujishiro discloses, wherein the first indication information configures, based on an identifier of the multicast service, whether to receive the multicast service [¶0167-0174, SIB configures the UE 100A to receive MBS service based on MBS session identifiers associated with the pieces of priority information (i.e., type of MBS service].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Li in view of Pham with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Fujishiro to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Fujishiro into the system of Li in view of Pham would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling user equipment to quickly identify which multicast service the message refers for efficient service selection, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 13.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (WO 2021077434 A1) in view of Pham et al (US Publication No. 2023/0239661 A1) and further in view of Xie et al (US Publication No. 2022/0322050 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Pham discloses, the method according to claim 4 as set forth above.
Although Li discloses, for a terminal device that receives the multicast service and is in a connected state, sending the first indication information and the second indication information . . . [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0213-0215, for the first terminal device that receives the multicast service and is in an connected state (note that the connection release message carrying the first indication information the second indication information is transmitted during the RRC connection state)], Li in view of Pham does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and underlined limitations), but Xie discloses, sending the first indication information and the second indication information in response to no multicast service and unicast service being within a time period of a preset duration [¶0102-0103, initiates an RRC connection release procedure to enter the idle state if If no multicast data has been received in the multicast mode during runtime of the timer and the first terminal still uses a unicast receiving mode].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Xie in the system of Li in view of Pham in order to cause the system to be able to reduce resource occupation of the multicast service, thus improving the usage of the system resource in a wireless communication network [e.g., ¶0075 of Xie].
Claims 8, 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (WO 2021077434 A1) in view of Pham et al (US Publication No. 2023/0239661 A1) and further in view of Taher et al (US Publication No. 2022/0232644 A1)3.
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Pham discloses, the method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Li further discloses, a signal quality threshold for reception of the multicast service [¶0185, access threshold or a quality of service threshold for reception of the multicast service], Li in view of Pham does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and underlined limitations), the second indication information comprises one or more of a signal quality threshold. In other words, Li in view of Pham does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and underlined limitations), the signal quality threshold disclosed by Li as set forth above is comprised in second indication information sent (by the other device).
However, Taher discloses, the signal quality threshold is comprised in second indication information sent (by the other device) [¶0129, one or more trigger criteria including a RSRS threshold is comprised in a trigger configuration sent by a base station] (see e.g., ¶0105 of US Provisional App. No. 63/141,299).
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Li in view of Pham with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Taher to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Taher into the system of Li in view of Pham would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling a network to efficiently and timely control service quality of user equipment and network efficiency, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 25, Li in view of Taher discloses, the method according to claim 19 and particularly, “wherein the second indication information is the signal quality threshold for reception of the multicast service” as set forth above.
Li further discloses, in response to being interested in the multicast service and signal quality of the serving cell being below than the signal quality threshold [¶0185, when at least one of the following conditions is met: quality of a service signal measured or a quality of service indicator is less than a threshold; being interested in the MBS service is implied], initiating an RRC connection establishment or resume procedure to enter a connected state for multicast receiving [¶0184-0185, enter the connected state for receiving the MBS services].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (WO 2021077434 A1) in view of Pham et al (US Publication No. 2023/0239661 A1) and further in view of Zhou et al (US Publication No. 2023/0232430 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Pham discloses, the method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Li in view of Pham does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and underlined limitations, but Zhou discloses, wherein said sending the data of the multicast service comprises: receiving beam information indicated through MSG1 or MSG3 by a terminal device [¶0324, the wireless device receives beam information in the configuration parameters carried by a first RRC message] and sending the data of the multicast service in the beam indicated by the beam information [¶0324, the wireless device receives a multicast TB based on the beam information; note that the multicast TB is sent by a base station].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Li in view of Pham with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Zhou to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Zhou into the system of Li in view of Pham would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling user equipment to align its uplink transmission with the optimal beam direction configured by a network, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
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 SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Li was cited in an IDS. Further, US patent family (US Publication No. 2022/0248184 A1) is used for English translation of Li and mapping to the claim limitations.
2 Since Pham is relying on PCT publication (WO 2022002830 A1) (see attached) to claim a priority date 06/28/2021, Pham is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 10/19/2021.
3 Taher claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/141,299 filed on 01/05/2021, thus Taher is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 10/19/2021.
Prosecution Insights