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 arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 3 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant: “First, Applicant provides the following explanation of the claims currently pending in the application. In an Amendment After Final filed January 5, 2026, Applicant amended the independent claims to recite "wherein multiple assignments based on the SPS, each associated with the one or more multicast broadcast services, can be active simultaneously in the BWP." Then, on February 2, 2026, Applicant filed a Request for Continued Examination (RCE), which requested entry and consideration of the January 5, 2026 amendments. Accordingly, the currently pending claims are the claims as amended in the amendment filed on January 5, 2026.“.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. If Applicant’s Representative carefully reads the Non-Final Rejection filed on 3/12/2026, the limitations from claims 49, 60, 71, and 72 filed on 1/5/2026 are expressly addressed. Applicant’s Representative amended the independent claims with “based on the SPS, each associated with the one or more multicast broadcast services”. The rejection clearly explains that Li discloses simultaneous SPS resource assignments for MBS’s, while Chai clearly discloses all MBS’s configured in the same BWP.
On page 3-4 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant: “Further, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited Li and Chai references, whether considered alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest "wherein multiple assignments based on the SPS, each associated with the one or more multicast broadcast services, can be active simultaneously in the BWP," as recited in currently pending claim 49…. multiple assignments based on the SPS, each associated with the one or more multicast broadcast services, can be active simultaneously in the BWP," as recited in currently pending claim 49. assignments based on the SPS is] associated with the one or more multicast broadcast services," as recited in claim 49. The phrase "a plurality of different service types" described in paragraph [0004] of Li merely refers to multiple unicast service types (e.g., voice calls, XR, etc.), rather than multicast broadcast services.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Li discloses that in the prior art it is well known to configure DL SPS’s with indices at a higher layer and then activate multiple DL SPS’s via DCI (p3-4). Li further discloses to improve the prior art MBS SPS’s can be configured using Group RNTI’s as part of the configuring of DL SPS’s (p5). Li’s invention expressly discloses the use of activating multiple DL SPS’s including multicast services using G-RNTI’s for decoding resource assignments (p5). Li discloses “A terminal may configure one or more DL SPSs on one or more serving cells (serving cell), each DL SPS corresponds to one configuration index… A plurality of simultaneously activated DL SPS configurations help reduce a latency and provide a possibility for support of a plurality of different service types by UE” which expressly states a plurality of simultaneously activated DL SPS configurations. The disclosure “help reduce a latency and provide a possibility for support of a plurality of different service types by UE” is in no way limiting the simultaneous DL SPS’s but rather stating benefits one being reduced latency and another benefit of support of a plurality of different service types by UE.
On page 5 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant: “Further, in paragraph [0005], Li states that "when the DL SPS is used to schedule a multicast broadcast service (MBS), the SPS PDSCH needs to perform scrambling using a sequence common to multicast terminals, for example, a group RNTI (g-RNTI)." This disclosure expressly treats the use of DL SPS for MBS as a distinct and conditional scenario. The need to separately specify scrambling operation when DL SPS is applied to MBS strongly indicates that the DL SPS described in the immediately preceding paragraph [0004] is directed to existing unicast services and does not inherently contemplate MBS operation.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Li expressly discloses using the DL SPS configurations for both unicast and multicast PDSCH assignments; each DL SPS is associated with a unicast or multicast RNTI in the configuration (55-57). The DCI distinguishes the DL SPS’s by the RNTIs. For example, unicast DCI is scrambled with C-RNTI while multicast is scrambled by G-RNTI (p53-57). In other words, Li discloses activating the DL SPS’s configured at a higher layer using C-RNTIs, and expanding the prior art by including G-RNTIs to activate multicast SPS PDSCH’s via DCI.
In view of the above discussions the rejection of claims 49, 60, 71, and 72 still stands.
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.
Claim(s) 49, 60, 71, and 72 is/are rejected rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2023/0189243) in view of Chai (US 2024/0129785).
For claims 49, 60, 71, and 72; Li discloses: receiving one or more configuration parameters of semi-persistent scheduling (SPS), the one or more configuration parameters of the SPS being associated with one or more multicast broadcast services and being configured per bandwidth part (BWP) by Radio Resource Control (RRC) (paragraph 3, 118: For transmission of a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), some parameters of downlink (DL) SPS are configured by a higher layer…the determining the type of the SPS PDSCH according to configuration signaling of the SPS PDSCH includes: if the configuration signaling of the SPS PDSCH is used to configure the SPS PDSCH on a first target resource, determining that the SPS PDSCH is a multicast SPS PDSCH, where the first target resource is a resource corresponding to multicast downlink transmission, for example, a BWP corresponding to the multicast downlink transmission); receiving downlink control information that indicates activation for an assignment based on the SPS (paragraph 3, 15, 75, 97, 99: transmission is activated by using downlink control information (DCI). After downlink SPS transmission is activated, PDSCH transmission is periodically initiated, and these PDSCH transmissions have no corresponding DCI indication…the indication module indicates the type of the SPS PDSCH to the terminal includes: activating the SPS PDSCH by using target DCI, and indicating, by using the target DCI, the type configured for the activated SPS PDSCH); and receiving, based on the assignment activated by the downlink control information, data associated with the one or more multicast broadcast services (paragraph 3, 99, 100: the target DCI is multicast DCI, and indicates that the activated SPS PDSCH is a multicast SPS PDSCH, where the multicast DCI is scrambled by using a specific RNTI…the determining the type of the SPS PDSCH according to configuration signaling of the SPS PDSCH includes: if the configuration signaling of the SPS PDSCH is used to configure the SPS PDSCH on a first target resource, determining that the SPS PDSCH is a multicast SPS PDSCH, where the first target resource is a resource corresponding to multicast downlink transmission, for example, a BWP corresponding to the multicast downlink transmission), wherein multiple assignments can be active simultaneously (paragraph 4: terminal may configure one or more DL SPSs on one or more serving cells…A plurality of simultaneously activated DL SPS configurations help reduce a latency and provide a possibility for support of a plurality of different service types by UE).
Li expressly discloses “wherein multiple SPS DL assignments can be activated simultaneously” (paragraph 4), and the SPS DL identify MBS’s using G-RNTI’s (paragraph 5, 55-57); Li does not expressly disclose, but Chai from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein multiple multicast configurations are configured in the BWP (paragraph 1215: there may be one or more broadcast or multicast services. The second BWP may be one BWP associated with all broadcast or multicast services, or may include multiple BWPs associated with multiple broadcast or multicast services. That is, an associated BWP may be configured for one or more broadcast/multicast services, or all broadcast/multicast services may be configured in one associated BWP). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the multicast BWP as described by Chai in the MBS scheduling as described by Li. The motivation is to improve resource usage in a BWP.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Chai as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0282114) (“Liu”).
For claim 50; Li discloses the subject matter in claim 49 as described above in the office action.
Li does not expressly disclose, but Liu from similar fields of endeavor teaches: receiving a downlink control signal that indicates deactivation of the assignment based on the SPS; and stopping reception of the data associated with the one or more multicast broadcast services based on the downlink control signal that indicates the deactivation of the assignment (paragraph 163: The base station 602 may indicate activation (or “triggering”) of SPS signaling transmission over a set of SPS occasions using DCI on a downlink control channel (e.g., PDCCH). Similarly, the base station 602 may release (or deactivate) the SPS signaling transmission using DCI on the downlink control channel (e.g., PDCCH). Accordingly, SPS signaling is dependent upon DCI on the downlink control channel for activation and release). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Liu in the MBS as described by Li. The motivation is to improve configuration of multiple services.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al. (US 2022/0322169); Park discloses the MBS interest service list comprises at least one of: an MBS frequency; an MBS session identifier; a group-radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI) of an MBS service or a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) service; a destination layer-2 identifier for the MBS service or the V2X service; an MBS service priority; or a V2X service priority.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
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.
/JOHN D BLANTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights