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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 4, 12, and 20 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 5 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 under U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Howes et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0146676). The new rejection is detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 17) recites the newly amended limitation of determining that the one or more of the parameters satisfy an error correction coding corresponding to the first heuristic and indicative of the type of communication. The examiner is unable to find support for this limitation in the instant application specification. The applicant cites originally filed claims 4, 12, and 20 and paragraph [0095] for support. While claims 4, 12, and 20 include most of the claim language they include that the parameters satisfy an encoding, not an error correction coding. Paragraph [0095] details how an encoding control can selectively apply or modify an encoding of the application communication according to a type of communication. Further, the encoding controller can apply error correction coding with a level of protection corresponding to a particular type of communication. The instant application specification details determining parameters satisfy an encoding and determining parameters satisfy a data size. ([0098]) However, the cited paragraph does not detail determining that one or more of the parameters satisfy an error correction encoding corresponding to the first heuristic and indicative of the type of communication. The examiner is unable to find support for determining parameters satisfy an error correction coding.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0319636), hereinafter Kahn, in view of Howes et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0146676), hereinafter Howes.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 17), Kahn teaches
A method, comprising: (Fig. 7; [0053-0055]; Fig. 1; i.e. A method performed by a network element such as the NG-RAN or UE comprising processor, memory and instructions to perform the method.)
identifying, by a wireless communication device, (Fig. 1, 135/115; i.e. network element such as UE or NG-RAN.) one or more of a plurality of data units (i.e. packets) each respectively corresponding to one or more types of communication; (i.e. MPEG-4 video or AAC audio) ([0049], lines 1-8; [0021]; [0026], lines 1-5; Fig. 3; Fig. 2)
determining, by the wireless communication device and from one or more of the plurality of data units, one or more parameters (i.e. GTP-U extension header parameters/parameters of RTP extension header) each indicating an importance (i.e. pdu set and media type level/pdu set 1 with level 1 – I Frame and level 2 – P frame/pdu set 5 with level 1- MPEG video and Level 2 – AAC audio) of respective ones of the plurality of data units according to the one or more types of communication; (i.e. MPEG-4 video or AAC audio) ([0049]; [0051]; [0029]; Fig. 3; [0028])
selecting, by the wireless communication device according to one or more of the parameters satisfying a first heuristic (i.e. the packet is MPEG-4 video of PDU set #5) indicative of a type of communication (i.e. MPEG-4 video) among the types of communication, (Fig. 2; i.e. MPEG-4 video or AAC audio of an application layer) a first set (i.e. packets of the MPEG-4 video with a particular media type/I frame packet) of one or more selected data units (i.e. packets of the MPEG-4 video) among one or more of the plurality of data units that correspond to the parameters satisfying a second heuristic (i.e. the packet is a particular media type of pdu set 1/I frame) corresponding to a quality-of- service (QoS) level for the type of communication and a second set (i.e. packets of the MPEG-4 video with a particular media type/P frame) of one or more selected data units among the one or more of the plurality of data units that correspond to the parameters satisfying a third heuristic (i.e. packets are a particular media type of pdu set 1/P frame) corresponding to a second QoS level for the type of communication, wherein the type of communication corresponds to a type of application (i.e. media type of an application such as MPEG-4 video or AAC audio) in an application layer; and; ([0049-0051]; [0042-0044]; [0026]; Fig. 2; Fig. 3; i.e. The quality level of a packet is determined by the communication/application type such as MPEG-4 video and also on the type of frame the packet carries. An MPEG-4 video I frame packet has a QoS value that is calculated according to being both the MPEG-4 video and an I frame. Another packet of the MPEG-4 video which is a P frame would have a different QoS.)
transmitting, by the wireless communication device according to the second heuristic, the first set (i.e. I frame packets of the MPEG-4 video) of one or more selected data units; and ([0042]; [0044]; [0052]; i.e. The NG-RAN transmits the DL packets to the UE according to the QoS flow policy for the particular media type levels of the pdu sets that the packet is associated with or the UE transmits the UL packets to the NG-RAN according to the QoS flow policy.)
transmitting, by the wireless communication device according to the third heuristic, the second set (i.e. P frame packets of the MPEG-4 video) of one or more selected data units. ([0042]; [0044]; [0052]; i.e. The NG-RAN transmits the DL packets to the UE according to the QoS flow policy for the particular media type levels of the pdu sets that the packet is associated with or the UE transmits the UL packets to the NG-RAN according to the QoS flow policy.)
However, Kahn fails to show
determining, by the wireless communication device, that the one or more of the parameters satisfy an error correction coding corresponding to the first heuristic and indicative of the type of communication.
Howes shows
determining, by the wireless communication device, (Fig. 1; [0059]; [0035]; i.e. controller) that the one or more of the parameters (i.e. content characteristics) satisfy an error correction coding (i.e. stream is FEC) corresponding to the first heuristic (i.e. stream is of a particular type such as FEC) and indicative of the type of communication. (i.e. FEC ) ([0042]; [0047]; [0088])
Howes and Kahn are considered analogous art because they involve characterizing and prioritizing packets for delivery based on the type of communication associated with a packet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kahn to incorporate the teachings of Howes wherein determining, by the wireless communication device, that the one or more of the parameters satisfy an error correction coding corresponding to the first heuristic and indicative of the type of communication. Doing so provides for the reliable transport of the presentation data.
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly claims 10 and 18), Kahn in view of Howes further shows
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting, by the wireless communication device according to one or more of the parameters satisfying a fourth heuristic (i.e. packet is AAC audio of PDU set #5) indicative of a second type of communication (i.e. AAC audio) among the types of communication, one or more second selected data units among one or more of the plurality of data units that correspond to the parameters satisfying the fourth heuristic. (Kahn: [0049-0051]; [0042-0044]; i.e. One or more packets of the traffic flow are selected for a particular QoS flow associated with the determined pdu sets and media type levels of the packets.)
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly claims 11 and 19), Kahn in view of Howes further shows
The method of claim 2, further comprising:
transmitting, by the wireless communication device according to a fifth heuristic (i.e. level of a different PDU set for an audio stream) corresponding to a third quality-of-service (QoS) level for the second type of communication, one or more of the second selected data units. (Kahn: [0038]; [0042]; [0044]; [0052]; i.e. The NG-RAN transmits the DL packets to the UE according to the QoS flow policy for the particular media type level of the pdu set.)
Claims 5-8 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn in view of Howes in view of Applicant submitted IDS document “3rd Generation Partnership Project: Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on XR (Extended Reality) and media services (Release 18”), “3GPP STANDARD: TECHNICAL REPORT: 3GPP TR 23.700-60, V0.3.0, 31 May 2022”, hereinafter XR.
Regarding claim 5 (and similarly claim 13), Kahn in view of Howes shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as detailed above. However, Kahn in view of Howes fails to show
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the wireless communication device, that the one or more of the parameters satisfy a data size corresponding to the first heuristic and indicative of the type of communication.
XR shows
determining, by the wireless communication device, that the one or more of the parameters satisfy a data size (“ 4. Classification for HTTP”; i.e. packet size) corresponding to the first heuristic and indicative of the type of communication. (Pages 51-52, Section 6.7.3.2.3)
XR and Kahn in view of Howes are considered analogous art because they involve 5GS extended reality systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kahn in view of Howes to incorporate the teachings of XR wherein determining, by the wireless communication device, that the one or more of the parameters satisfy a data size corresponding to the first heuristic and indicative of the type of communication. Doing so provides for appropriate classification of the packet and therefore the most appropriate priority.
Regarding claim 6 (and similarly claim 14), Kahn in view of Howes shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as detailed above. However, Kahn in view of Howes fails to show
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
repeating, by the wireless communication device according to the second heuristic, the transmitting of the one or more of the selected data units.
XR shows
repeating, (i.e. retransmitting) by the wireless communication device according to the second heuristic, (i.e. type of packet is I-frame) the transmitting of the one or more of the selected data units. (Page 190, Section 6.53.2; i.e. An I-frame packet would be retransmitted when it wasn’t at first sent successfully.)
XR and Kahn in view of Howes are considered analogous art because they involve 5GS extended reality systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kahn to incorporate the teachings of XR wherein repeating, by the wireless communication device according to the second heuristic, the transmitting of the one or more of the selected data units. Doing so provides that the high priority packets would be received successfully.
Regarding claim 7 (and similarly claim 15), Kahn in view of Howes shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as detailed above. However, Kahn in view of Howes fails to show
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, by the wireless communication device according to the second heuristic and a metric indicating an acknowledgement of the transmitting, the one or more of the selected data units.
XR shows
transmitting, by the wireless communication device according to the second heuristic (i.e. type of packet being I-frame) and a metric (i.e. ARQ) indicating an acknowledgement of the transmitting, the one or more of the selected data units. (Page 190, Section 6.53.2; i.e. The ARQ indicates that the data was received but an error was detected in the received data. An I-frame packet would be retransmitted when it wasn’t at first sent successfully.)
XR and Kahn in view of Howes are considered analogous art because they involve 5GS extended reality systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kahn to incorporate the teachings of XR wherein transmitting, by the wireless communication device according to the second heuristic and a metric indicating an acknowledgement of the transmitting, the one or more of the selected data units. Doing so provides that important packets are received successfully.
Regarding claim 8 (and similarly claim 16), Kahn in view of Howes shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as detailed above. However, Kahn in view of Howes fails to show
The method of claim 1, wherein the identifying, the determining, the selecting, and the transmitting are performed via an application layer of the wireless communication device.
XR shows
wherein the identifying, the determining, (i.e. parameters/information from the RTP header extension are determined) the selecting, (i.e. packets of importance are selected based on the RTP header information) and the transmitting (i.e. packets are sent upstream from the UE) are performed via an application layer (Fig. 6.7.3.2-1) of the wireless communication device. (i.e. UE) (Pages 49-50, Section 6.7.3.2)
XR and Kahn in view of Howes are considered analogous art because they involve 5GS extended reality systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kahn in view of Howes to incorporate the teachings of XR wherein the identifying, the determining, the selecting, and the transmitting are performed via an application layer of the wireless communication device to provide the details on what layer the steps may be performed.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn in view of Howes as applied above, and further in view of Caramma (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0007069).
Regarding claim 21, (and similarly claims 22 and 23) Kahn in view of Howes shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as detailed above. However, Kahn in view of Howes fails to show
The method of claim 1, wherein the error correction coding has a degree of redundancy corresponding to the type of communication.
Caramma shows
wherein the error correction coding has a degree of redundancy (i.e. level of protection including more recovery symbols) corresponding to the type of communication. (i.e. different data streams such as video and audio) ([0034-0036]; [0064-0074])
Caramma and Kahn in view of Howes are considered analogous art because they involve transmission of media streams to a recipient. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kahn in view of Howes to incorporate the teachings of Caramma wherein the error correction coding has a degree of redundancy corresponding to the type of communication. Doing so provides for error recovery of the data streams while taking in consideration the level of protection needed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE H JAHNIGE whose telephone number is (571)272-8450. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. 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.
/CAROLINE H JAHNIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451