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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Damnjanovic et al (US 20240389083 A1) hereinafter Damjanovic.
Regarding claim 1,
Damjanovic teaches a method implemented by device(s) of a mobile network operator (MNO) (techniques implemented by network entities of one or more MNOs [0076]-[0097]; Fig. 3), the method comprising: allocating one or more physical resource blocks (PRBs) for an uplink channel to receive a communication from a user equipment (UE) that is receiving a broadcast of broadcast content over a downlink channel (allocating resources for receiving Random Access, RA, preamble from the UE that receives broadcasted system information [0094]-[0096]), wherein the communication from the UE is associated with the broadcast content or with a transmission of the broadcast content (the UE transmits the RA preamble based on the broadcasted system information [0094]-[0096]); receiving the communication from the UE over the uplink channel (receiving an RA preamble from the UE over the allocated PRACH channel [0094]-[0096]); and providing information based on the communication to a broadcast provider that provided the broadcast content for delivery over the downlink channel (the message is transmitted to the MNO that is intended for the RA preamble [0096]).
Regarding claim 2,
Damjanovic teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Damjanovic further teaches the receiving comprises receiving the communication at an access network (AN) of the MNO (receiving the RA preamble at a network entity of the MNO [0096]) and the providing comprises transmitting the communication or the information based on the communication from the AN to a core network and from the core network to the broadcast provider (transmitting from the RU to the DU/CU belonging to a broadcasting MNO [0047], [0102] and [0112]; Figs. 5).
Regarding claim 5,
Damjanovic teaches all the features of claim 2, as outlined above.
Damjanovic further teaches both the uplink channel and the downlink channel are associated with the AN of the MNO (the system information and the RA preamble are associated with a RU that is shared between the target MNO and another MNO [0107]; Fig. 5), and the information based on the communication includes one or more data items from the communication, information related to performance of the uplink channel gathered by the AN of the MNO, information related to performance of the downlink channel gathered by the AN of the MNO (UE reporting downlink signal quality [0062]-[0064]), or multiple ones of these.
Regarding claim 6,
Damjanovic teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Damjanovic further teaches wherein the communication from the UE includes feedback from a viewer or from the UE for the broadcast provider (receiving an RA preamble from the UE in response to detecting the system information over the allocated PRACH channel [0094]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 8,
Damjanovic teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Damjanovic further teaches wherein the broadcast provider is a provider of low- power television, a satellite broadcaster, or a broadcaster for vehicle-to-everything (V2X)- /unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)-related services (MNO providing services to IoT devices such vehicles [0028] and [0045]).
Claims [9-10, 12-13 and 15] “device” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [1-2, 5-6 and 8] “method”, where Damjanovic teaches devices comprising one or more processors.
Claims [16-17 and 19] “non-transitory computer storage medium” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [1-2 and 5] “method”.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 3-4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damjanovic in view of Choksi et al. (US 20220110177 A1) hereinafter Choksi.
Regarding claim 3,
Damjanovic teaches all the features of claim 2, as outlined above.
Damjanovic further teaches the downlink channel is associated with an AN of the broadcast provider and the AN of the broadcast provider with a core network of the broadcast provider (allocating resources for receiving Random Access, RA, preamble from the UE that receives broadcasted system information associated with an RU of the target MNO and the RU of the target MNO with a DU/CU of the MNO [0094]-[0096]).
Damjanovic does not explicitly teach the transmitting to the core network comprises transmitting the communication or the information based on the communication from a core network of the MNO to the core network of the broadcast provider.
Choksi teaches the transmitting to the core network comprises transmitting the communication or the information based on the communication from a core network of the MNO to the core network of the broadcast provider (redirecting signaling traffic through the core network between two MSOs [0024]-[0026] and [0058]; Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Choksi to the teachings of Damjanovic. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow data offloading (Choksi [0005]).
Regarding claim 4,
Damjanovic and Choksi teach all the features of claim 3, as outlined above.
Damjanovic further teaches wherein the information based on the communication includes one or more data items from the communication (RA preamble may include an identification sequence [0112]), information related to performance of the uplink channel gathered by the AN of the MNO, or both.
Claim [11] “device” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim [4] “method”, where Damjanovic teaches devices comprising one or more processors.
Claim [18] “non-transitory computer storage medium” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim [4] “method”.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damjanovic and Choksi in view of Lo et al. (US 20210136424 A1) hereinafter Lo.
Regarding claim 7,
Damjanovic and Choksi teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Damjanovic and Choksi do not explicitly teach wherein the communication from the UE includes at least one of a data related to a threshold to start service or stop service, information related to a service change, information related to degrading a service or upgrading a service, a customization for stream of the broadcast content, or a customization for a television (TV)-in- TV viewer.
Lo teaches wherein the communication from the UE includes at least one of a data related to a threshold to start service or stop service, information related to a service change, information related to degrading a service or upgrading a service, a customization for stream of the broadcast content (assistance data containing streaming modifications [0052]), or a customization for a television (TV)-in- TV viewer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Choksi to the teachings of Damjanovic. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow data offloading (Choksi [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Lo to the teachings of Damjanovic and Choksi. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enhance quality of service (Lo [0005]).
Claim [14] “device” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim [7] “method”, where Damjanovic teaches devices comprising one or more processors.
Claim [20] “non-transitory computer storage medium” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim [7] “method”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI whose telephone number is (703)756-4586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5:00 PM ET. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571)270-0422. 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.
/ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465