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 .
1. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14 and 18 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claim 1, 7, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and 7, the feature “determining whether a plurality of media stream is not supported between a first terminal and a second terminal for a same user” in the claims renders the claims indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are uncertain. For example, it would raise a question what if a plurality of media stream is not supported between a first terminal and a second terminal for a same user. In addition, the feature “identifying whether the plurality of media stream is synchronized between the first terminal and the second terminal” in claims 1 and 7 also renders the claims indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are uncertain. For example, it would raise a question what if the plurality of media stream is not synchronized between the first terminal and the second terminal.
Regarding claims 13 and 17, the feature “identifying whether the plurality of media streams is synchronized between the terminal and a second terminal for a same user based on the ID and the information associated with the synchronization requirement” renders the claims indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are uncertain. For example, it would raise a question what if the plurality of media steams is not synchronized between the terminal and a second terminal for a same user.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 12-13, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Foy et al. (hereinafter, “De Foy”), US 2012/0236842 A1, in view of Curcio et al., (hereafter, “Curcio”), US 2007/0047590 A1.
Regarding claim 1, De Foy teaches a method performed by a network entity in a communication system, the method comprising:
identifying whether a plurality of media streams is supported between a first terminal and a second terminal for a same user (i.e., all of its media flows ae synchronized/supported across/by WTRUs, page 6 paragraph [0070]);
identifying whether the plurality of media streams is synchronized between the first terminal and the second terminal (i.e., media flows are synchronized across all of the WTRUs, page 6 paragraph [0070]);
transmitting, to a first terminal, a session description protocol (SDP) offer message (i.e., De foy, in page 1 paragraph [0004], the SCC-AS 315 may send an inter-WTRU transfer request message 355 to the WTRU 3202, Fig. 3A and page 5 paragraph [0069]. De Foy, in abstract, discloses each of the messages may include SDP attribute), wherein the SDP message comprises an identifier for a group of the plurality of media streams (i.e., each of the messages may include a session description protocol (SDP) attribute line containing a media flow group identity (ID), page 1 paragraph [0004]) and information associated with a synchronization requirement (i.e., a session description protocol (SDP) attribute line containing time synchronization information, and synchronization tolerance IE, abstract);
receiving, from the first terminal, an SDP answer in response to the SDP offer message (i.e., the WTRU 3202 may send an inter-WTRU transfer response message 370, page 6 paragraph [0070] and page 4 paragraph [0052]); and
transmitting, to the first terminal, a first media stream among a plurality of media streams based on the ID and information associated with the synchronization requirement (i.e., WTRUs may exchange information element (IE)s to enable inter-device media synchronization…IEs include a group identify (ID) IE, which may enable matching synchronized flows together page 4 paragraph [0048]); and
transmitting, to the second terminal, a second media stream among a plurality of media streams based on the ID in case that the second media stream is synchronized with the first media stream based on the information associated with the synchronization requirements (i.e., the group ID IE may identify flows that being synchronized together…ensure that synchronized playback occurs for a plurality of WTRUs, page 4 paragraphs [0048]- [0054]).
De Foy does not explicitly teach information on a synchronization jitter associated with a synchronization delay for the plurality of media streams, and information on a synchronization latency associated with a latency requirement for the plurality of media streams.
Curcio teaches information on a synchronization jitter associated with a synchronization delay for the plurality of media streams, and information on a synchronization latency associated with a latency requirement for the plurality of media streams (i.e., indicate a synchronization delay/jitter value among the multimedia streams, page 4 paragraphs [0075]- [0075]). 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 the teachings of Defoy to include information on a synchronization jitter associated with a synchronization delay for the plurality of media streams, and information on a synchronization latency associated with a latency requirement for the plurality of media streams, as taught by Curcio. One would be motivated to do so to improve media quality (i.e., Curcio, page 3 paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, De Foy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the SDP offer message further comprises information associated with a list of a second plurality of media streams (i.e., page 4 paragraph [0052]), wherein the plurality of media streams is included in the second plurality of media streams (i.e., page 4 paragraph [0053]), and wherein the SDP answer message comprises information associated with the at least one first media stream included in the second plurality of media streams (i.e., page 4 paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, those claims recite a network entity for performing method claims 1 and 6, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claims 13 and 16, those claims recite a method similar to method claims 1 and 6, however, performed at a terminal side, therefore, the same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claims 17 and 20, those claims limitations that are similar to claims 1 and 6, performed at the terminal side, same rationale of rejections is applied.
In addition, De Foy teaches a transceiver (i.e., transceiver 120); and a processor (i.e., processor 118) coupled with the transceiver (i.e., Fig. 1B).
4. Claim(s) 3, 5, 9, 11, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Foy and Curcio as applied to claim 1, 7, 13 and/or 17, above, and further in view of Rivas Molina et al. (hereinafter, “Rivas Molina”), WO 2024/033475 A1.
Regarding claim 3, De Foy teaches the method of claim 2.
The combination of teachings of De Foy and Curcio does not explicitly teach wherein, in case that the media stream and the second media stream are included in the first plurality of media streams, the first terminal and the second terminal correspond to a same application function (AF) specific service function (SF) group identifier.
Rivas Molina teaches wherein, in case that the first media stream and the second media stream are included in the first plurality of media streams, the first terminal and the second terminal correspond to a same application function (AF) specific service function (SF) group identifier (i.e., when another device (UE2) initiates the communication, the AF request the needed resources, including the same MMCI as for the first device (UE1), page 40).
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 the teachings of De Foy and Curcio, to include in case that the at least one first media stream and the at least one second media stream are included in the first plurality of media streams, the first terminal and the second terminal correspond to a same application function (AF) specific service function (SF) group identifier, as taught by Rivas Molina. One would be motivated to do so to allow the AF to provide service information for multi-modal application.
Regarding claim 5, De Foy teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the first plurality of media streams is included in one session among the plurality of sessions (i.e., media flows during a collaboration session, abstract).
The combination of teachings of De Foy and Curcio does not explicitly teach second information including a second ID for a multi-modal service, and wherein a value of the second ID is same as a value for a plurality of sessions associated with the multi-modal service and the first terminal.
Rivas Molina teaches second information including a second ID for a multi-modal service (i.e., multi-modality communication Identifier (MMCI), page 40), and wherein a value of the second ID is same as a value for a plurality of sessions associated with the multi-modal service and the first terminal (i.e., the application will manage each device (VR glasses and gloves) via separate procedures, but allocate the same MMCI, Fig. 9 and page 40).
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 the combination of teachings of De Foy and Curcio to include a second identifier for a multi-modal service, and wherein a value of the second identifier is same as a value for a plurality of sessions associated with the multi-modal service and the first terminal, as taught by Rivas Molina, in order to allow the same network entity to manage multiple terminal devices.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, those claims recite limitations that are similar to claims 3 and 5, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claims 15 and 19, this claim recites limitation that is similar to claim 5, same rationale of rejection is applied.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19-20 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.
In addition, Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) (i.e., media resource function (MRF)). When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “media resource function (MRF)” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OANH DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex Mon-Fri 6:00am-5:00pm.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571) 272-4170. 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.
/OANH DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441