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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response towards claim interpretation has been fully considered and is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,15,16, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1,5-9,13,15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao; David et al. (US 20130058405 A1) in view of AMINI; Peiman et al. (US 20190261243 A1) in view of Kotaka; Naohiko et al. (US 20150036753 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches,
An information processing apparatus, (¶102 and fig. 4, “system of encoder and decoder” manifested in combinations of “storage 14 and processing apparatus 16” and “storage medium 24 and processing apparatus 26” as depicted in fig. 4) comprising:
a processor (¶106-110,69,133, and fig. 4, “encoder” 14,16 depicted in fig. 4 “arranged to be executed on the processing apparatus 16” implemented by a “general purpose or application specific processor”) configured to:
acquire error information transmitted (¶108-110 and fig. 4, “feedback from the decoder” depicted in fig, 4 indicating if “frames or slices in the decoder were decoded without containing any error-propagation distortions”) from a reception apparatus (¶108-110 and fig. 4, frames or slices in the “decoder”) that receives encoded data of a video; (¶108-110 and fig. 4, “frames or slices” in the decoder where the frame is “encoded”) wherein
the video is transmitted via a first wireless channel, (¶108-110 and fig. 4, “encode” 51,53 transmits “frames or slices” to “decode” 61’,63’ depicted in fig. 4 where the frame is “encoded”)
the error information is transmitted (¶108-110 and fig. 4, “feedback from the decoder” depicted in fig, 4 indicating if “frames or slices in the decoder were decoded without containing any error-propagation distortions”) via a second wireless channel, (¶108-110 and fig. 4, “feedback channel”) and
control an encoding process (¶109,106, and fig. 4, “encoder’s controller”) of the video (¶106,69,79, and fig. 4, controller of the encoder “decides what actions to be taken” when encoder “encodes the video stream” according to “encoding mode selection”) based on the acquired error information (¶69,79,83,110, encodes video stream according to encoding mode selection “configured to maintain an error propagation distortion map” considering “feedback” for frames or slices in the decoder relating to “error-propagation distortions”)
But does not explicitly teach,
the second wireless channel performs transmission with lower latency than the first wireless channel;
in a case where each frame of a plurality of frames is encoded in the video, a part of each frame is set as an intra region, and
a position of the intra region is shifted in a specific direction for each frame to pass through an entire frame for each frame of the plurality of frames.
However, Amini teaches additionally,
the second wireless channel (¶81, selected “available” and identified “another channel” with lower latency) performs transmission with lower latency (¶81, “selected channel” with lower latency) than the first wireless channel; (¶81, “currently selected channel”)
Zhao directs to separate channels for transmitting either a bitstream or information. Amini discloses that channels are selected according to their characteristics for transmission which includes being selected according to latency, throughput, range, interference, noise, utilization, etc. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Zhao with the select channels of Amini which has channels with comparably different latencies. Channels with particular characteristics that accommodate for the transmission can help improve in transmission by determining better channels than the one currently selected.
Kotaka teaches additionally,
in a case where each frame of a plurality of frames is encoded in the video, (¶453, image processing device “coding unit codes a plurality of images” according to coding parameter) a part of each frame is set as an intra region, (¶453, image processing device includes “an intra-prediction mode” that processes the intra-prediction mode “only for some blocks”) and
a position of the intra region is shifted in a specific direction for each frame to pass through an entire frame (¶453,351, and 369, “transform unit shifts the intra-prediction mode” of the image by predetermined number of blocks in the “horizontal direction”, vertical direction, an oblique direction, or a rotation direction in a case in which the coding parameter for “image processing” is the intra-prediction mode) for each frame of the plurality of frames. (¶453, image processing device “coding unit codes a plurality of images”)
It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Zhao with the select channels of Amini with the shifting of Kotaka which shifts the intra-prediction mode for an image that processes the intra-prediction mode only for some blocks. This process results in more accurate shift amounts.
Regarding claim 5, Zhao with Amini with Kotaka teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Zhao teaches additionally,
error information (¶108-110 and fig. 4, “feedback from the decoder”) includes information indicating an error (¶109, feedback from the decoder “indicating that the reference at lt pos 1 arrived” marked as “error-free acknowledged”) that occurs based on the reception of the encoded data. (¶109, encoder gets the feedback from the decoder indicating the “first frame”, that is encoded, “arrive at the decoder” error-free)
Regarding claim 6, Zhao with Amini with Kotaka teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Zhao teaches additionally,
error information (¶108-110 and fig. 4, “feedback from the decoder”) includes information indicating an error (¶109, feedback from the decoder “indicating that the reference at lt pos 1 arrived” marked as “error-free acknowledged”) that occurs based on a decoding process of the encoded data. (¶109, encoder gets the feedback from the decoder indicating the “first frame”, that is encoded, “arrive at the decoder” error-free after one round-trip-time “RTT” related to a frame decoded and maintained in the “decoded picture buffer”)
Regarding claim 7, Zhao with Amini with Kotaka teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Zhao teaches additionally,
wherein the processor is further configured to encode, (¶102,69, and fig. 4, “encoding module” 51,53 of encoder 14 “arranged to be executed on the processing apparatus 16” depicted in fig. 4 that transmits “encoded bitstream”) based on the acquisition of the error information, (¶109 and 83, “encoder's controller may be configured” manage long-term references based on feedback indicating “no error propagation” that effects “mode selection” based on feedback from the receiver 22) the video to generate the encoded data. (¶102,69, and fig. 4, encoding module of “encoder” receives input video stream and “encodes the video stream”)
Regarding claim 8, Zhao with Amini with Kotaka teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Amini teaches additionally,
monitor a state of the first wireless channel; (¶44 and fig. 4, monitoring component 404 “monitors for inputs” indicative of conditions in the “wireless network and/or characteristics of a video stream to be transmitted over the wireless network” by performing measurements of “network conditions such as interference, channel utilization, etc.”) and
control the encoding process of the video (¶44 and fig. 4, channel selection component 406 “selects channels in one or more frequency bands for fronthaul communications”) based on the monitored state of the first wireless channel. (¶44, selected “channels in one or more frequency bands”)
It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Zhao with the select channels of Amini with the shifting of Kotaka which has channels with comparably different latencies. Channels with particular characteristics that accommodate for the transmission can help improve in transmission by determining better channels than the one currently selected.
Regarding claim 9, Zhao with Amini with Kotaka teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Amini teaches additionally,
first wireless channel (¶71 and 81, “channel” with select frequency band such as “2.4 GHz frequency band” able to accommodate the video stream) has a different frequency band (¶81 and 71, selected available and another channel selecting a “channel” includes “selecting between the 2.4 GHz frequency band and the 5 GHz frequency band in a multi-band wireless network”) than the second wireless channel. (¶71 and 81, “channel” with select frequency band such as “5 GHz frequency band” able to accommodate the video stream)
It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Zhao with the select channels of Amini with the shifting of Kotaka which has channels with comparably different frequency band. Channels with particular characteristics accommodate for the transmission can help improve in transmission by determining better channels than the one currently selected.
Regarding claim 13, Zhao with Amini with Kotaka teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Zhao teaches additionally,
first wireless channel (¶69, encoder “outputs encoded video stream for transmission via the transmitter 18 and communication network 32”) complies with the wireless communication standards which are different from the wireless communication standards (¶69 and 108, encoder via communication “network 32 by which the video stream is transmitted” along packet-based network, and the feedback channel transmits via an “alternative feedback mechanism”) to which the second wireless channel complies. (¶108, “feedback channel” being an alternate feedback mechanism)
Regarding claim 15, it is the method claim of apparatus claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 1 to teach the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Zhao teaches,
An information processing apparatus, (¶102 and fig. 4, “system of encoder and decoder” manifested in combinations of “storage 14 and processing apparatus 16” and “storage medium 24 and processing apparatus 26” as depicted in fig. 4) comprising:
a processor (¶106-110,69,133, and fig. 4, “encoder” 14,16 depicted in fig. 4 “arranged to be executed on the processing apparatus 16” implemented by a “general purpose or application specific processor”) configured to:
receive encoded data of a video transmitted (¶102 and fig. 4, “decoding module” 61’, 63’ receiving “encoded bitstream” depicted in fig. 4) via a first wireless channel, (¶102,108-110, and fig. 4, “encode” 51,53 transmits “frames or slices” to “decode” 61’,63’ depicted in fig. 4 where the frame is “encoded”) wherein
transmit error information (¶108-110 and fig. 4, “feedback from the decoder”) that indicates an error related to the received encoded data (¶108-110 and fig. 4, feedback sent via feedback channel indicating that the reference arrived and “contained no error propagation”) to a transmission source (¶109 and fig. 4, “encoder gets the feedback from the decoder”) of the encoded data (¶109 and fig. 4, “first frame (at a time t0) that is encoded”) via a second wireless channel, (¶108-110, “feedback channel”) wherein the second wireless channel performs transmission (¶108-110 and fig. 4, decoder terminal 24 communicating to encoder terminal 12 “via a feedback channel”)
But does not explicitly teach,
in a case where each frame of a plurality of frames is encoded in the video, a part of each frame is set as an intra region, and
a position of the intra region is shifted in a specific direction for each frame to pass through an entire frame for each frame of the plurality of frames
the second wireless channel performs transmission with lower latency than the first wireless channel.
However, Kotaka teaches additionally,
in a case where each frame of a plurality of frames is encoded in the video, (¶453, image processing device “coding unit codes a plurality of images” according to coding parameter) a part of each frame is set as an intra region, (¶453, image processing device includes “an intra-prediction mode” that processes the intra-prediction mode “only for some blocks”) and
a position of the intra region is shifted in a specific direction for each frame to pass through an entire frame (¶453,351, and 369, “transform unit shifts the intra-prediction mode” of the image by predetermined number of blocks in the “horizontal direction”, vertical direction, an oblique direction, or a rotation direction in a case in which the coding parameter for “image processing” is the intra-prediction mode) for each frame of the plurality of frames (¶453, image processing device “coding unit codes a plurality of images”)
It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Zhao with the shifting of Kotaka which shifts the intra-prediction mode for an image that processes the intra-prediction mode only for some blocks. This process results in more accurate shift amounts.
Amini teaches additionally,
the second wireless channel (¶81, selected “available” and identified “another channel” with lower latency) performs transmission with lower latency (¶81, “selected channel” with lower latency”) than the first wireless channel. (¶81, “currently selected channel”)
Zhao directs to separate channels for transmitting either a bitstream or information. Amini discloses that channels are selected according to their characteristics for transmission which includes being selected according to latency, throughput, range, interference, noise, utilization, etc. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Zhao with the shifting of Kotaka with the select channels of Amini which has channels with comparably different latencies. Channels with particular characteristics that accommodate for the transmission can help improve in transmission by determining better channels than the one currently selected.
Regarding claim 17, Zhao with Kotaka with Amini teaches the limitations of claim 16,
Zhao teaches additionally,
detect a reception error (¶115,108-110 and fig. 4, decoder acknowledges “decoded frame without any error-propagation distortion”) in the received encoded data, (¶108-110 and fig. 4, encoded bitstream of “first frame (at a time t0) that is encoded” received by decode 61’,63’ of decoder 24,26 arrives “at the decoder” that is marked as error-free) wherein
the error information (¶108-110 and fig. 4, “feedback information” depicted in fig. 4) includes information that indicates the detected reception error. (¶108-110 and fig. 4, feedback sent via feedback channel indicating that the reference arrived and “contained no error propagation”)
Regarding claim 18, Zhao with Kotaka with Amini teaches the limitations of claim 16,
Zhao teaches additionally,
error information (¶108-110 and fig. 4, “feedback information” depicted in fig. 4) includes information that indicates a decoding error (¶108-110 and fig. 4, feedback sent via feedback channel indicating that the reference arrived and “contained no error propagation”) related to a decoding process of the received encoded data. (¶109 and fig. 4, encoder gets “feedback from the decoder”, as depicted in fig. 4, indicates the reference arrived and “contained no error propagation” when receiving first frame “that is encoded”)
Regarding claim 19, Zhao with Kotaka with Amini teaches the limitations of claim 18,
Zhao teaches additionally,
decode the received encoded data; (¶110 and fig. 4, decoded “frames or slices in the decoder” received from encoded bitstream as depicted in fig. 4)
acquire information that indicates the decoding error; (¶110¸ “feedback to contain information about the decoded picture buffer 65’ at the decoder”) and
transmit the error information (¶109, feedback from the decoder “indicating that the reference at lt pos 1 arrived” marked as “error-free acknowledged”) including the information that indicates the decoding error. (¶109, encoder gets the feedback from the decoder indicating the “first frame”, that is encoded, “arrive at the decoder” error-free after one round-trip-time “RTT” related to a frame decoded and maintained in the “decoded picture buffer”)
Regarding claim 20, it is the method claim of apparatus claim 16. Refer to rejection of claim 16 to teach the limitations of claim 20.
Claim 2,3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao; David et al. (US 20130058405 A1) in view of AMINI; Peiman et al. (US 20190261243 A1) in view of Kotaka; Naohiko et al. (US 20150036753 A1) in view of KOANA; Masahiro (US 20100128790 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Zhao with Amini with Kotaka teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Kotaka teaches additionally,
the intra region is intra-coded, (¶453, image processing device includes “an intra-prediction mode” that processes the intra-prediction mode “only for some blocks”)
but does not explicitly teach,
the processor is further configured to return the position of the intra region to an initial position based on the acquisition of the error information.
However, Koana teaches additionally,
the processor (¶54-59,27, and fig. 1 and 8, motion compensation performed by “motion compensation unit 6b” as part of decoding processing device 10 depicted in fig. 1) is further configured to return the position of the intra region to an initial position (¶57 and fig. 8, “does not change the rounding direction and maintains the present state” based on error value being within allowable range) based on the acquisition of the error information. (¶54-59 and fig. 8, column-error-value counter unit 31 “calculate a column cumulative error value”)
It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Zhao with the select channels of Amini with the shifting of Kotaka with the error evaluation of Koana which determines cumulative errors for columns of an intra-prediction frame. Incorporating this technique prevents a state in which it looks as if an object in an image suddenly moves when the object moves to an intra-screen prediction frame.
Regarding claim 3, Zhao with Amini with Kotaka with Koana teaches the limitations of claim 2,
Koana teaches additionally,
intra region includes a subregion of a frame, (¶53-59 and fig. 8, motion compensation performed for “macro blocks arranged in one column” when checking if “an intra-screen prediction frame is decoded”)
the subregion includes multiple blocks (¶53-59 and fig. 8, “macro blocks arranged in one column are treated as one unit”) arranged in a vertical direction of the frame, (¶53-59 and fig. 8, “macro blocks arranged in one column”)
the initial position (¶54-59 and fig. 8, “initialization of a rounding direction and a column cumulative error value at the start of decoding processing”) corresponds to a left end of the frame, (¶54 and fig. 8, “initial setting, the rounding direction is set in the – direction” used in accumulating difference by “shifting a motion vector” halved in the “left direction”)
the position of the intra region is shifted rightward for the each frame of the plurality of frames, (¶54-57 and fig. 8, “rounding-direction control unit 12b changes the rounding direction to the + direction ("roundXDirection=1")” which is opposite the – direction left disclosed in fig. 8) and,
the processor (¶54-59,27, and fig. 1 and 8, motion compensation performed by “motion compensation unit 6b” as part of decoding processing device 10 depicted in fig. 1) is further configured to return the position of the intra region to the left end of the each frame (¶57,54, and fig. 8, “the rounding-direction control unit 12b changes the rounding direction to the - direction ("roundXDirection=0")” left direction when the “column cumulative error value (totalErrorL) is smaller than the lower limit of the column allowable error range”) based on the acquisition of the error information. (¶54-59 and fig. 8, column-error-value counter unit 31 “calculate a column cumulative error value”)
It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Zhao with the select channels of Amini with the shifting of Kotaka with the error evaluation of Koana which determines cumulative errors for columns of an intra-prediction frame. Incorporating this technique prevents a state in which it looks as if an object in an image suddenly moves when the object moves to an intra-screen prediction frame.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao; David et al. (US 20130058405 A1) in view of AMINI; Peiman et al. (US 20190261243 A1) in view of Kotaka; Naohiko et al. (US 20150036753 A1) in view of Lee; Sungwon et al. (US 20190098301 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Zhao with Amini with Kotaka teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Zhao teaches additionally,
video includes an intra frame (¶93, “sequence of the frame will be coded with intra coding”) corresponding to an intra-coded frame, (¶93, first frame will be coded with “intra coding”) and
based on the acquisition of the error information, (¶109-110 and fig. 4, “encoder gets the feedback from the decoder” indicating the reference “arrived” marked as “error-free”) the processor is further configured to set a specific frame of the plurality of frames that is encoded. (¶109-110 and fig. 4, based on if the “encoder gets the feedback from the decoder” arrived marked as error-free, “the next long-term reference frame” is placed into “lt pos 0” based on feedback indicating the frame in the decoder was “decoded without containing any error-propagation distortions”)
But does not explicitly teach,
set, as the intra frame, a specific frame of the plurality of frames that is encoded.
However, Lee teaches additionally,
in a case where the acquisition section acquires information, (¶127, “Video encoder 20 may then update a reference picture set to add the future pictures to the reference picture set”) encoding control section sets, as the intra frame, (¶127, “encoded pictures of the intra period”) a specific frame of the plurality of frames that is encoded. (¶127, “add each of the determined future pictures to reference picture sets of one or more subsequently encoded pictures of the intra period”)
It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Zhao with the select channels of Amini with the shifting of Kotaka with the picture set updating of Lee which can encode a group of pictures in an intra period. This grouping structure technique does not limit the number of periods while also providing coding gain with minimal increase in the picture buffer size.
Claim 10-12,14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao; David et al. (US 20130058405 A1) in view of AMINI; Peiman et al. (US 20190261243 A1) in view of Kotaka; Naohiko et al. (US 20150036753 A1) in view of Rahman; Md. Saifur et al. (US 20190149214 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Zhao with Amini with Kotaka teaches the limitations of claim 9,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 9,
However, Rahman teaches additionally,
first wireless channel (¶78 and fig. 5, “operator’s network 510” depicted in fig. 5 including “an eMBB slice 560a”) satisfies a requirement for enhance Mobile broadband (eMBB) (¶78 and fig. 5, “an eMBB slice 560a” in the operator’s network 510) in a wireless communication system,
the wireless communication system satisfies a provision International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT)-2020 specified by International Telecommunication Union, (¶3, “International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has categorized the usage scenarios for international mobile telecommunications (IMT) for 2020” which includes groups such as “enhanced mobile broadband”) and
the second wireless channel (¶78 and fig. 5, “operator’s network 510” depicted in fig. 5 including “a URLL slice 540a”) satisfies a requirement for Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communication (URLLC) (¶78-79,74, and fig. 5, “a URLL slice 540a” referring to “ultra reliable and low latency (URLL)” to serve “UEs requiring URLL services”) in the wireless communication system. (¶78-79,74-75, and fig. 5, “operator's network 510” depicted in fig. 5 that supports “5G network” that supports “diverse services”)
It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Zhao with the select channels of Amini with the shifting of Kotaka with the communication systems of Rahman which allows for a network to include multiple slice communication categories. This communication arrangement allows for considering requirements such as reliability/throughput/latency requirement and power efficiency requirements.
Regarding claim 11, Zhao with Amini with Kotaka teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Zhao teaches additionally,
first wireless channel is a downlink (¶69, “video encoder arranged to be executed on the processing apparatus 16” outputs the “encoded video stream for transmission via the transmitter 18” to the receiver 28 of the second terminal 22)
the second wireless channel is an uplink (¶108, “decoder on the receiving terminal 24” is configured to communicate with “encoder on the transmitting terminal 12 via a feedback channel”)
Amini teaches additionally,
first wireless channel that has a same frequency band as that of the second wireless channel, (¶40, “two wireless APs may provide coverage via different channels within the same band (e.g., two different channels in the 5 GHz frequency band)”)
the second wireless channel having a same frequency band as that of the first wireless channel (¶40, “two wireless APs may provide coverage via different channels within the same band (e.g., two different channels in the 5 GHz frequency band)”)
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 1,
However, Rahman teaches additionally,
first wireless channel (¶78 and fig. 5, “operator’s network 510” depicted in fig. 5 including “an eMBB slice 560a”) satisfies a requirement for enhance Mobile broadband (eMBB) in in a wireless communication system, (¶78 and fig. 5, “an eMBB slice 560a” in the operator’s network 510)
the wireless communication system satisfies a provision International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT)-2020 specified by International Telecommunication Union, (¶3, “International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has categorized the usage scenarios for international mobile telecommunications (IMT) for 2020” which includes groups such as “enhanced mobile broadband”)
the second wireless channel (¶78 and fig. 5, “operator’s network 510” depicted in fig. 5 including “a URLL slice 540a”) satisfies a requirement for Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communication (URLLC) (¶78-79,74, and fig. 5, “a URLL slice 540a” referring to “ultra reliable and low latency (URLL)” to serve “UEs requiring URLL services”) in the wireless communication system. (¶78-79,74-75, and fig. 5, “operator's network 510” depicted in fig. 5 that supports “5G network” that supports “diverse services”)
It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Zhao with the select channels of Amini with the shifting of Kotaka with the communication systems of Rahman which allows for a network to include multiple slice communication categories. This communication arrangement allows for considering requirements such as reliability/throughput/latency requirement and power efficiency requirements.
Regarding claim 12, Zhao with Amini with Kotaka teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 1,
However, Rahman teaches additionally,
first wireless channel is a network slice (¶78-79 and fig. 5, “an eMBB slice 560a” as part of “operator’s network 510” depicted in fig. 5 ) different from a network slice corresponding to the second wireless channel, (¶78-79 and fig. 5, “an eMBB slice 560a” separate and different from “a URLL slice 540a” as part of “operator’s network 510” depicted in fig. 5 )
the first wireless channel satisfies a requirement for enhance Mobile broadband (eMBB) in a wireless communication system, (¶78 and fig. 5, “operator’s network 510” depicted in fig. 5 including “an eMBB slice 560a”)
the wireless communication system satisfies a provision International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT)-2020 specified by International Telecommunication Union, (¶3, “International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has categorized the usage scenarios for international mobile telecommunications (IMT) for 2020” which includes groups such as “enhanced mobile broadband”) and
the second wireless channel satisfies a requirement for Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communication (URLLC) (¶78-79,74, and fig. 5, “a URLL slice 540a” referring to “ultra reliable and low latency (URLL)” to serve “UEs requiring URLL services”) in the wireless communication system. (¶78-79,74-75, and fig. 5, “operator's network 510” depicted in fig. 5 that supports “5G network” that supports “diverse services”)
It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Zhao with the select channels of Amini with the shifting of Kotaka with the communication systems of Rahman which allows for a network to include multiple slice communication categories. This communication arrangement allows for considering requirements such as reliability/throughput/latency requirement and power efficiency requirements.
Regarding claim 14, Zhao with Amini with Kotaka teaches the limitations of claim 13,
Amini teaches additionally,
first wireless channel (¶104, select “wireless AP 120” channel) complies with at least one of a wireless channel using an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standard, (¶104, selected wireless AP 120 channel sharing signals and time share “according to 802.11)
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 13,
However, Rahman teaches additionally,
first wireless channel (¶78 and fig. 5, “operator’s network 510” depicted in fig. 5 including “an eMBB slice 560a”) complies with at least one of a provision International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT)- Advanced standard specified by International Telecommunication Union, (¶3 and 78-79, “International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has categorized the usage scenarios for international mobile telecommunications (IMT) for 2020” which includes groups such as “enhanced mobile broadband” related to eMBB slice 560a) Long Term Evolution (LTE) formulated by Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), and
the second wireless channel (¶78 and fig. 5, “operator’s network 510” depicted in fig. 5 including “a URLL slice 540a”) satisfies a requirement for Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communication (URLLC) (¶78-79,74, and fig. 5, “a URLL slice 540a” referring to “ultra reliable and low latency (URLL)” to serve “UEs requiring URLL services”) in a wireless communication system, (¶78-79,74-75, and fig. 5, “operator's network 510” depicted in fig. 5 that supports “5G network” that supports “diverse services”) and
the wireless communication system satisfies a provision IMT-2020 specified by the International Telecommunication Union. (¶3 and 78-79, “International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has categorized the usage scenarios for international mobile telecommunications (IMT) for 2020” which includes groups such as “ultra-reliable and low latency communications” related to URLL slice 540a)
It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Zhao with the select channels of Amini with the shifting of Kotaka with the communication systems of Rahman which allows for a network to include multiple slice communication categories. This communication arrangement allows for considering requirements such as reliability/throughput/latency requirement and power efficiency requirements.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JIMMY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10AM-8PM EST.
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, Joseph G. Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/JOSEPH G USTARIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2483
/JIMMY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2483