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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application claims priority from provisional application 63515509 (filed 07/25/2023).
In accordance with the Remarks filed 08/26/2026, claims 1-10 and 20 are elected for examination on the merits, claims 11-19 are canceled, and claims 21-29 and newly added. Hence, claims 1-10 and 20-29 are examined and pending.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 20-21, and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN et al. (US 20240323982 A1, as translation of WO2023103832A1, hereinafter SUN), in view of HU et al. (US 20230403727 A1, hereinafter HU).
Regarding claim 1,
SUN teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code (SUN, see at least fig. 12-13, e.g. apparatus and components)
to cause the UE to (SUN, in general, see fig. 5-6 along with their paragraphs):
receive control information that schedules a broadcast transmission and that indicates a bandwidth of the broadcast transmission (SUN, see paragraphs related to step 503, for example, but not limited to, para. 151-152, “...S503: The access network device sends an MCCH to the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal. Correspondingly, the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal receive the MCCH from the access network device. The MCCH is used to carry configuration information of the MTCH of the target multicast broadcast service...”);
and
receive, in accordance with the control information, one or more instances, of the broadcast transmission, wherein a quantity of the one or more instances is associated with the bandwidth of the broadcast transmission (SUN, see paragraphs related to step 504, for example, but not limited to, para. 172-173, “...S504: The access network device sends the target multicast broadcast service to the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal on a frequency domain resource corresponding to the MTCH. Correspondingly, the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal receive the target multicast broadcast service from the access network device on the frequency domain resource corresponding to the MTCH...”).
SUN does not teach in multiple time slots, of the broadcast transmission.
HU teaches in multiple time slots, of the broadcast transmission (HU, in general, see fig. 2-3 and their corresponding paragraphs, in particular, see at least para. 36-37, for one non-limiting example, “...The second PDSCH is more spread out over the time domain (e.g., the same amount of REs are transmitted over more slots) due to the limitations (e.g., bandwidth limitations) of the RedCap UE...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate HU into SUN for effectively reducing signaling or resource overhead.
Regarding claim 2, SUN in view of HU teaches claim 1.
SUN further teaches the bandwidth of the broadcast transmission being greater than a bandwidth threshold is associated with the quantity of the one or more instances being one (SUN, see at least para. 152-153 in view of para. at least 178-179, for one non-limiting example, “...The MCCH is used to carry configuration information of the MTCH of the target multicast broadcast service. When the indication information indicates that the receiver of the target multicast broadcast service includes the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal, the MCCH meets one or more of the following limitations. (1) A first frequency domain resource corresponding to the MCCH does not exceed a maximum bandwidth capability of the narrowband terminal...”, note that the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal have their respective maximum bandwidth capabilities (thresholds). In other words, when maximum bandwidth capability is set for narrowband terminal which is lower, only the broadband terminal could receive its broadcast transmission);
and
the bandwidth of the broadcast transmission being less than the bandwidth threshold is associated with the quantity of the one or more instances being two or more (SUN, see at least para. 152-153 in view of para. at least 178-179, for one non-limiting example, “...The MCCH is used to carry configuration information of the MTCH of the target multicast broadcast service. When the indication information indicates that the receiver of the target multicast broadcast service includes the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal, the MCCH meets one or more of the following limitations. (1) A first frequency domain resource corresponding to the MCCH does not exceed a maximum bandwidth capability of the narrowband terminal...”, note that the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal have their respective maximum bandwidth capabilities (thresholds). In other words, inversely when maximum bandwidth capability is set for broadband terminal which is higher, both the broadband terminal and the narrowband terminal could receive their respective broadcast transmissions).
Regarding claim 5, SUN in view of HU teaches claim 1.
SUN further teaches wherein the bandwidth of the broadcast transmission indicates the quantity of the one or more instances to be processed by the UE. (SUN, see at least para. 172-173, for one non-limiting example, “...Correspondingly, the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal receive the target multicast broadcast service from the access network device on the frequency domain resource corresponding to the MTCH. It may be understood that the MTCH is the MTCH of the target multicast broadcast service in step S503. The MTCH is mapped to a PDSCH for transmission, and the frequency domain resource corresponding to the MTCH is a frequency domain resource in the PDSCH...”)
Regarding claim 6, SUN in view of HU teaches claim 1.
SUN further teaches wherein the bandwidth of the broadcast transmission is less than a bandwidth threshold, wherein the one or more instances comprises a plurality of instances based at least in part on the bandwidth of the broadcast transmission being less than the bandwidth threshold, and wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: process the plurality of instances based at least in part on the bandwidth of the broadcast transmission being less than the bandwidth threshold. (SUN, see at least para. 152-153 in view of para. at least 178-179, for one non-limiting example, “...The MCCH is used to carry configuration information of the MTCH of the target multicast broadcast service. When the indication information indicates that the receiver of the target multicast broadcast service includes the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal, the MCCH meets one or more of the following limitations. (1) A first frequency domain resource corresponding to the MCCH does not exceed a maximum bandwidth capability of the narrowband terminal...”, note that the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal have their respective maximum bandwidth capabilities (thresholds). In other words, when maximum bandwidth capability is set for broadband terminal which is higher, both the broadband terminal and the narrowband terminal could receive their respective broadcast transmissions)
Regarding claim 7, SUN in view of HU teaches claim 1.
SUN further teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine the quantity of the one or more instances of the broadcast transmission based at least in part on a comparison of the bandwidth of the broadcast transmission with a plurality of bandwidth thresholds, wherein each bandwidth threshold is associated with a respective quantity of supported instances. (SUN, see at least para. 178-179 along with para. 91, “...A frequency domain resource that corresponds to the MTCH and that is configured by using the configuration information A is denoted as a frequency domain resource A. The frequency domain resource A does not exceed the maximum bandwidth capability of the narrowband terminal. A frequency domain resource that corresponds to the MTCH and that is configured by using the configuration information B is denoted as a frequency domain resource B. The frequency domain resource B does not exceed a maximum bandwidth capability of the broadband terminal...”, note that “...A bandwidth capability of the narrowband terminal is lower than a bandwidth capability of the broadband terminal...”)
Regarding claim 8, SUN in view of HU teaches claim 1.
SUN further teaches wherein, to determine the quantity of the one or more instances of the broadcast transmission, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine that a first bandwidth threshold of the plurality of bandwidth thresholds is a largest bandwidth threshold satisfied by the bandwidth of the broadcast transmission; and determine the quantity of the one or more instances of the broadcast transmission to be the respective quantity of supported instances associated with the first bandwidth threshold. (see claim 2 rejection, for example, SUN, see at least para. 152-153 in view of para. at least 178-179, for one non-limiting example, “...The MCCH is used to carry configuration information of the MTCH of the target multicast broadcast service. When the indication information indicates that the receiver of the target multicast broadcast service includes the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal, the MCCH meets one or more of the following limitations. (1) A first frequency domain resource corresponding to the MCCH does not exceed a maximum bandwidth capability of the narrowband terminal...”, note that the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal have their respective maximum bandwidth capabilities (thresholds). In other words, when maximum bandwidth capability is set for narrowband terminal which is lower, only the broadband terminal could receive its broadcast transmission)
Regarding claim 9, SUN in view of HU teaches claim 1.
SUN further teaches wherein the quantities of supported instances are inversely correlated with the plurality of bandwidth thresholds. (see claim 2 rejection, for example, SUN, see at least para. 152-153 in view of para. at least 178-179, for one non-limiting example, “...The MCCH is used to carry configuration information of the MTCH of the target multicast broadcast service. When the indication information indicates that the receiver of the target multicast broadcast service includes the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal, the MCCH meets one or more of the following limitations. (1) A first frequency domain resource corresponding to the MCCH does not exceed a maximum bandwidth capability of the narrowband terminal...”, note that the narrowband terminal and the broadband terminal have their respective maximum bandwidth capabilities (thresholds). In other words, inversely when maximum bandwidth capability is set for broadband terminal which is higher, both the broadband terminal and the narrowband terminal could receive their respective broadcast transmissions)
Regarding claims 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, respectively, except each of these claims is in method claim format.
Regarding claim 29, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in computer-readable medium claim format.
To be more specific, SUN in view of HU also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising computer-readable medium (SUN, see at least fig. 12-13), which is well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Claims 3-4, 10, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN in view of HU, and further in view of Chiou-Wei Tsai (US 20240389099 A1, hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 3,
SUN in view of HU teaches claim 2.
SUN in view of HU further teaches the bandwidth threshold is 20 MHz for RedCap UEs (SUN, see at least para. 91; HU, see at least para. 63)
SUN in view of HU does not teach the bandwidth threshold is 5 MHz.
Tsai teaches the bandwidth threshold is 5 MHz (Tsai, see at least para. 23, “...the maximum device bandwidth of the processing capability of an eRedCap device with respect to the PDSCH and physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) in FR1 bands is further reduced to 5 MHz...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Tsai into SUN in view of HU for lower power consumption and relaxed data rates.
Regarding claim 4, SUN in view of HU teaches claim 2.
SUN in view of HU does not teach the bandwidth threshold is based at least in part on 25 physical resource blocks and a subcarrier spacing of 15 kHz or 12 physical resource blocks and a subcarrier spacing of 30 kHz.
Tsai teaches the bandwidth threshold is based at least in part on 25 physical resource blocks and a subcarrier spacing of 15 kHz or 12 physical resource blocks and a subcarrier spacing of 30 kHz. (Tsai, see at least para. 32, for example, 25 PRBs for 15 kHz SCS and 12 PRBs for 30 kHz SCS are for eRedCap devices with maximum device bandwidth of 5 MHz)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Tsai into SUN in view of HU for lower power consumption and relaxed data rates.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 3 except this claim is in method claim format.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 3 and 4, respectively, except each of these claims is in method claim format.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights