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 .
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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is response to the application filed 7/24/2024 having
claims 1-30 pending and presented for examination.
Priority
2. Application filed on 02/01/2023 has PRO 63/267,517 02/03/2022 are acknowledged.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 02/01/2023 and these drawings are accepted.
4. Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
4. The Oath/Declaration filed on 02/01/2023 is accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claim(s) 1-7, 11-18, 22-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230403596 A1 PRIES et al. (Hereinafter “PRIES").further view of US PG Pub US 20230176915 A1 to RHYU et al (hereinafter RHYU).
As per claim 1, (Original) PRIES teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories , configured to: transmit an indication of one or more parameters for a split rendering configuration with a network node (para 0281-0284],fig 6, UE is sending split rendering information and indication to the network server edge server ); and receive an indication of acceptance of the one or more parameters for a split rendering session ((para 0281-0284],fig 6, UE is receiving a response from the server regarding the request indication of acceptance of the one or more parameters for a split rendering session).
RHYU teaches wherein a workload split for the split rendering session is adjustable based at least in part on a change associated with the one or more parameters (para 0202-0204], workload split between UE and server is adjustable based on the load status associated with high capacity content or other content wherein processing at server is more than UE). transmit a request to update the split rendering configuration, wherein the split rendering configuration is updated during the split rendering session (para 0202-0204], transmitting by the UE to update the parameters during the split rendering session such as the quality of service information based on the location and other factors). 20220321628
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of PRIES by wherein a workload split for the split rendering session is adjustable based at least in part on a change associated with the one or more parameters, transmit a request to update the split rendering configuration, wherein the split rendering configuration is updated during the split rendering session suggested by RHYU, this modification would benefit PRIES for efficiently data processing in rendering system between a server and client a mobile communication network.
As per claim 2, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more of:a rendering capability of the UE,a quality parameter for the split rendering session, (para 0282], fig. 5,6, one or more parameters comprise rendering capability of the UE,a quality parameter for the split rendering session,).
As per claim 3, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches UE of claim 2, wherein [[a]] the rendering capability of the UE indicates one or more of:a scene complexity threshold for which the UE supports rendering, a decoding capability of the UE, an availability of power resources of the UE,a projection capability of the UE, or availability of computing resources of the UE ((para 0282], fig. 5,6, one or more parameters comprise rendering capability of the UE and server ,a quality parameter for the split rendering session,). .
As per claim 4, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the indication of the one or more parameters, are configured to: transmit an update to values of the one or more parameters previously indicated for the split rendering session; or transmit a request to update during split rendering session the split rendering configuration (para 0296], transmit the indication of the one or more parameters transmit a request to update the split rendering configuration) .
As per claim 5, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, as part of the split rendering session, one or more of pose information or scene information that is based at least in part on the one or more parameters (para 0320], receive, as part of the split rendering session pose information or scene information that is based at least in part on the one or more parameters).
As per claim 6, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches UE of claim 5, wherein the one or more of the pose information or the scene information has an accuracy that is based at least in part on the split rendering configuration, or wherein the one or more of the pose information or the scene information is received with an update frequency that is based at least in part on the split rendering configuration (para 0320], wherein the one or more of pose information or scene information has an accuracy that is based at least in part on the split rendering configuration such pose tracking information).
As per claim 7, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches UE of claim 6, wherein the accuracy of the one or more of the pose information or the scene information is associated with an age of the one or more of the pose information or the scene information at arrival to the network node or at rendering by the UE (para 0320], accuracy of the one or more of the pose information or scene information is associated with an age of the one or more of the pose information).
As per claim 11, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches method UEof claim 1, wherein receiving the indication of acceptance of the one or more parameters for the split rendering session comprises: receiving the indication of acceptance within a configuration for the split rendering session ((para 0281-0284],fig 6, UE is receiving response from the server of acceptance within a configuration for the split rendering session).
As per claim 12, (Original) PRIES teaches a network node for wireless communication, comprising: a memory one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: receive an indication of one or more parameters for a split rendering configuration with a user equipment (UE) (para 0281-0284],fig 6, network server is receiving from the UE and indication with parameters for a split rendering configuration with a user equipment (UE)); and transmit an indication of acceptance of the one or more parameters for a split rendering session (para 0281-0284],fig 6, network is responding an acceptance of the one or more parameters for a split rendering session).
RHYU teaches wherein a workload split for the split rendering session is adjustable based at least in part on a change associated with the one or more parameters (para 0053-0055], workload split between UE and server is adjustable based on the load status associated with high capacity content or other content wherein processing at server is more than UE) receive a request to update the split rendering configuration, wherein the split rendering configuration is updated during the split rendering session (para 0202-0204], receiving by the network to update the parameters during the split rendering session such as the quality of service information based on the location and other factors)..
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 1.
As per claim 13, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches network node of claim 12, wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more of:a rendering capability of the UE,a quality parameter for the split rendering session, d (para 0282], fig. 5,6, one or more parameters comprise rendering capability of the UE,a quality parameter for the split rendering session,). .
As per claim 14, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches network node of claim 13, wherein the rendering capability of the UE indicates one or more of: a scene complexity threshold for which the UE supports rendering, a decoding capability of the UE, an availability of power resources of the UE, a projection capability of the UE, or availability of computing resources of the UE ((para 0282], fig. 5,6, one or more parameters comprise rendering capability of the UE and server,a quality parameter for the split rendering session,).
As per claim 15, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches network node of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors, to receive the indication of the one or more parameters, are configured to:receive an update to values of the one or more parameters previously indicated for the split rendering session; or receive a request to update during split rendering session the split rendering configuration (para 0296], transmit the indication of the one or more parameters transmit a request to update the split rendering configuration) ..
As per claim 16, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches network node of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:transmit, as part of the split rendering session, one or more of pose information or scene information that is based at least in part on the one or more parameters (para 0320], receive, as part of the split rendering session pose information or scene information that is based at least in part on the one or more parameters). .
As per claim 17, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches network node of claim 16, wherein the one or more of the pose information or the scene information has an accuracy that is based at least in part on the split rendering configuration, or wherein the one or more of the pose information or the scene information is received with an update frequency that is based at least in part on the split rendering configuration (para 0320], wherein the one or more of pose information or scene information has an accuracy that is based at least in part on the split rendering configuration such pose tracking information)..
As per claim 18, (Original) PRIES teaches network node of claim 17, wherein the accuracy of the one or more of the pose information or scene information is associated with an age of the one or more of the pose information or the scene information at arrival to the network node or at rendering by the UE (para 0320], accuracy of the one or more of the pose information or scene information is associated with an age of the one or more of the pose information)..
As per claim 22, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches method network node of claim 12, wherein receiving the indication of acceptance of the one or more parameters for the split rendering session comprises: receiving the indication of acceptance within a configuration for the split rendering session (para 0281-0284],fig 6, receiving the indication of acceptance within a configuration for the split rendering session).
As per claim 23, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches network node of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform rendering on rendering data based at least in part on the one or more parameters (para 0281-0284],fig 6, UE is receiving response from the server of acceptance within a configuration for the split rendering session)..
As per claim 24, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches network node of claim 23, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:receive the rendering data from the UE, or receive the rendering data from an additional network node (para 0281-0284],fig 6, receive the rendering data from the UE)..
As per claim 25, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches network node of claim 23, wherein the one or more processors, to perform rendering on the rendering data based at least in part on the one or more parameters, are configured to:cull a scene based at least in part on a current pose associated with the UE;reduce detail of a mesh for rendering the scene to satisfy a polygon threshold of the UE;combine lighting information into the scene; combine texture information into the scene; configure a texture resolution of the scene; configure a materials detail of the scene; or configure a resolution of the scene (para 0231], material details of the scene is configured).
As per claim 26, (Original) PRIES teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:t ransmitting an indication of one or more parameters for a split rendering configuration with a network node (para 0281-0284],fig 6, UE is sending split rendering information and indication to the network server edge server ); and receiving an indication of acceptance of the one or more parameters for a split rendering session (para 0281-0284],fig 6, UE is receiving a response from the server regarding the request indication of acceptance of the one or more parameters for a split rendering session) ). transmitting a request to update the split rendering configuration, wherein the split rendering configuration is updated during the split rendering session (para 0202-0204], transmitting by the UE to update the parameters during the split rendering session such as the quality of service information based on the location and other factors). .
RHYU teaches wherein a workload split for the split rendering session is adjustable based at least in part on a change associated with the one or more parameters (para 0053-0055], workload split between UE and server is adjustable based on the load status associated with high capacity content or other content wherein processing at server is more than UE).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 1.
As per claim 27, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches method of claim [[24]] 26, wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more of:a rendering capability of the UE,a quality parameter for the split rendering session (para 0282], fig. 5,6, one or more parameters comprise rendering capability of the UE,a quality parameter for the split rendering session,). .
As per claim 28, (Original) PRIES teaches method of wireless communication performed by a network node, comprising:receiving an indication of one or more parameters for a split rendering configuration with a user equipment (UE) (para 0281-0284],fig 6, network server is receiving from the UE and indication with parameters for a split rendering configuration with a user equipment (UE)); and transmitting an indication of acceptance of the one or more parameters for a split rendering session (para 0281-0284],fig 6, network is responding an acceptance of the one or more parameters for a split rendering session). .
RHYU teaches wherein a workload split for the split rendering session is adjustable based at least in part on a change associated with the one or more parameters (para 0053-0055], workload split between UE and server is adjustable based on the load status associated with high capacity content or other content wherein processing at server is more than UE) ) receiving a request to update the split rendering configuration, wherein the split rendering configuration is updated during the split rendering session (para 0202-0204], receiving by the network to update the parameters during the split rendering session such as the quality of service information based on the location and other factors)..
.
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 1.
As per claim 29, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches method of claim [[26]]28, wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more of:a rendering capability of the UE,a quality parameter for the split rendering session, (para 0282], fig. 5,6, one or more parameters comprise rendering capability of the UE,a quality parameter for the split rendering session,). .
As per claim 30, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches method of claim [[26]]28, further comprising performing rendering on rendering data based at least in part on the one or more parameters(para 0282], fig. 5,6, performing rendering on rendering data based at least in part on the one or more parameters ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claim(s) 8-10, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PRIES, RHYU further view of US PG Pub US 20230316583 A1 to YIP et al (hereinafter YIP).
As per claim 8, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches UE of claim 5, YIP teaches wherein the pose information comprises multiple pairs of timing indications and pose information elements (para 0008], pose information comprises multiple pairs of timing indications and pose information elements).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of PRIES by a wherein the pose information comprises multiple pairs of timing indications and pose information elements as suggested by YIP, this modification would benefit PRIES for efficiently rendering 3D media data in a communication system in a mobile communication network.
As per claim 9, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches method UE of claim 5, further comprising: transmitting an indication of a pose and display timestamp to the network node, wherein the pose information is based at least in part on the indication of the pose and display timestamp (para 0011], transmitting an indication of a pose and display timestamp to the network node, wherein the pose information is based at least in part on the indication of the pose and display timestamp).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 8.
As per claim 10, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches method UEof claim 9, wherein the indication of the pose and display timestamp comprises one or more of: an indication of multiple pairs of poses and display timestamps, an indication of a location of the UE, or an indication an orientation of the UE (para 0060], an orientation of the UE) .
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 8.
As per claim 19, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches network node of claim 16, wherein the pose information comprises multiple pairs of timing indications and pose information elements (para 0008], pose information comprises multiple pairs of timing indications and pose information elements)..
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 8.
As per claim 20, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches method network node of claim 16, further comprising: receiving an indication of a pose and display timestamp from the UE, wherein the pose information is based at least in part on the indication of the pose and display timestamp (para 0011], transmitting an indication of a pose and display timestamp to the network node, wherein the pose information is based at least in part on the indication of the pose and display timestamp). .
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 8.
As per claim 21, (Original) PRIES, RHYU teaches method network node of claim 20, wherein the indication of the pose and display timestamp comprises one or more of:an indication of multiple pairs of poses and display timestamps, an indication of a location of the UE, or an indication an orientation of the UE (para 0060], an orientation of the UE) .
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 8.
Response to Arguments
On page 12 of applicants’ argument regarding claim 1 and other independent claims, argues that, “Applicant respectfully submits that PRIES and RHYU do not disclose or suggest each and every feature recited in amended claim 1. For example, as discussed during the interview, PRIES and RHYU do not disclose or suggest "transmit a request to update the split rendering configuration, wherein the split rendering configuration is updated during the split rendering session," as recited in amended claim “. RHYU in fig 15, para [0202-024], teaches a split rendering mechanism in which UE communicates with the network and based on the dynamic configuration changes from UE because of the UE capabilities, UE updates during the split rending the update status to the network which causes the workload split rending changes because of the UE capabilities are changed and rendering capabilities also changes in UE and the network.
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record, not relied upon: US Patent Publication US 20210105058 A1; US Patent Publication US 20160080777 A1, US Patent Publication US 20100138293 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEZ EBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7153. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM to 5 PM If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on (571) 272-3940. 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./ANEZ C EBRAHIM/ /ANEZ C EBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights