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 arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 6, 11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (WO-2022180619-A1).
As to claim 1, 6, 11, 16: Choi teaches a method performed by a first user equipment (UE) in a communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a server, scheduling information for measuring a delay between the first UE and a second UE ([0108, 109] the RAN node 207 sends to the qualified UE AS 503 aDL RRC message for setting up QoE measurements); measuring the delay between the first UE and the second UE based on the scheduling information ([0067, 113] UE starts QoE measurement collection including delay); generating communication delay information based on the measured delay ([0067, 205] QoE measurement report); -and transmitting, to the server, the communication delay information ([0067, 68, 205] UE transmits one or more QoE measurement reports to the base unit).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (WO-2022180619-A1) in view of 3GPP TR 26.806 V1.0.0 (2022-12) Technical Report 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on Tethering AR Glasses – Architectures, QoS and Media Aspects (Release 18).
As to claim 2, 7, 12, 17: Choi teaches the method of claim 1
Choi may not explicitly teach wherein a first communication technology used to connect the first UE and the second UE differs from a second communication technology used to connect the first UE and the server. 3GPP teaches wherein a first communication technology used to connect the first UE and the second UE differs from a second communication technology used to connect the first UE and the server (fig. 6.3-2 WiFi and 5G).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement different protocols, taught by 3GPP, into the communication system, taught by Choi, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and implement inter-operability of wireless protocols. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Choi and 3GPP in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 3, 8, 13, 18: Choi teaches the method of claim 1.
Choi may not explicitly teach wherein the communication delay information includes at least one of information about internal processing delay of the first UE, an identifier (ID) for the second UE, or a media component ID included in the media. However, 3GPP teaches wherein the communication delay information includes at least one of information about internal processing delay of the first UE, an identifier (ID) for the second UE, or a media component ID included in the media (section 6.1.2.1 To meet the end-to-end latency requirement for the AR/MR session, some entities must determine the delay on the tethering link; section 6.2.2 ping request).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement end-to-end latency, taught by 3GPP, into the communication system, taught by Choi, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and … . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine … and … in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (WO-2022180619-A1) in view of Stockhammer (US-20230137968).
As to claim 4, 9, 14, 19: Choi teaches the method of claim 1.
Choi may not explicitly teach further comprising: receiving, from the server, a delay-related requirement based on the communication delay information, wherein the delay-related requirement includes at least one of a maximum allowed delay time or an over-delay policy for the media transmission. However, Stockhammer teaches further comprising: receiving, from the server, a delay-related requirement based on the communication delay information ([0005, 103] QoS information includes delay information), wherein the delay-related requirement includes at least one of a maximum allowed delay time or an over-delay policy for the media transmission ([0103] amount of delay that is allowed to be increased without violating QoE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement max allowed delay, taught by Stockhammer, into the communication system, taught by Choi, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and implement delay policy to avoid excessive delay. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Stockhammer and Choi in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 15, 20 21is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (WO-2022180619-A1) in view of Suh (WO-2011068355-A2).
As to claim 5, 10, 15, 20: Choi teaches the method of claim 4
Choi may not explicitly teach wherein the delay-related requirement further includes information about transmission priority between a plurality of media components included in a media. However, Suh teaches wherein the delay-related requirement further includes information about transmission priority between a plurality of media components included in a media (The QoS method of each flow is a method of reserving resources for each stream. That is, a method of reserving a resource (eg, bit rate, buffer state) or QoS (delay, loss rate, etc.) for each flow. The flow refers to a stream required for one service. For example, a video stream, an audio stream, and a text stream required to provide on-demand video services become separate flows; For reference, the audio stream may be more important than the video stream. As described in FIG. 4 to be described later, the label value at this time may be inserted into the TOS field of the IPv4 header or the TC field of the IPv6 header. For example, if the size of the label value is set to 2 bits, the importance of each packet is differentiated in the order of 11, 10, 01, 00. That is, a label value of 11 can be inserted into an audio packet, 10 into a base layer video packet, 01 into an enhancement 1 layer video packet, and 00 into an enhancement 2 layer video packet. For reference, in SVC, an image may be divided into a base layer image, an enhancement 1 layer image, and an enhancement 2 layer image.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement transmission priority between media, taught by Suh, into the communication system, taught by Choi, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and give priority to more important media streams. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Choi and Suh in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
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 ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights