DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 10/22/2024.
Claims 1-9,13-15 and 24-31are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 10/22/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
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 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(a) 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 13-15 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadiri et al. (US 20230029146 A1), hereinafter “Kadiri”; and in further view of Mediatek “Discussion on MBS broadcast reception on SCell and Non-serving cell”, hereinafter “Mediatek”.
Regarding claim 1, Kadiri teaches A method comprising: receiving, on a first component carrier (CC), a radio resource control (RRC) configuration message from a serving base station (BS) [Fig. 3],
receiving, from a multicast and broadcast services (MBS) BS one or more system information blocks (SIBs) corresponding to a multicast control channel (MCCH); transmitting, to the serving BS, [Fig. 4; Par. 30, 57- 63 teaches receiving broadcast service from cells; Par. 31 teaches using one or more channels for communication link];
PNG
media_image1.png
630
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Kadiri does not teach an indication of interest comprising information related to one or more MBS CCs including a second CC; receiving, from the MBS BS, broadcast transmission on the second CC;
and receiving, unicast transmission from the serving BS.
Nevertheless, Mediatek, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches an indication of interest comprising information related to one or more MBS CCs including a second CC [Section 1 disclosed receiving broadcast with information on a different carrier frequency than UE’s serving cell]; receiving, from the MBS BS, broadcast transmission on the second CC [See section 1, 2 MBS broadcast reception on Scell];
and receiving, unicast transmission from the serving BS [Fig. 1, 2; section 1, 2; Pg. 4; observation 7, unicast reception].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time when the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Mediatek to transmit over second carrier and second cell. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Mediatek in the Kadiri system with a motivation to make this modification in order to receive broadcast information on different cells [Mediatek: section 1].
Regarding claim 2, the combined Kadiri in view of Mediatek teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Kadiri in view of Mediatek further teaches wherein the indication of interest is reported via dedicated signaling [Kadiri: Par. 58 teaches signaling over granted uplink resource].
Regarding claim 3, the combined Kadiri in view of Mediatek teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Kadiri in view of Mediatek further teaches comprise frequency information corresponding to the one or more MBS CCs [Kadiri: Par. 58 teaches UE can transmit, to at least a serving cell of the one or more cells, a broadcast service interest indication… a frequency over which the broadcast service is provided].
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 24- 27 and 31 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights