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 statement (IDS) submitted on 09/01/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s remarks have been given full consideration, as such this Office Action has been modified in view of Amendments filed on 08/26/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed "REMARKS" on 08/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “…a prima facie case of obviousness requires that the combination teach every limitation, and this limitation is absent…”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant alleges that: Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15, “Balmakhtar contains no "service anchor," and nothing in Balmakhtar makes slice or edge-network determination a function of any service anchor”, and “Yang, for its part, supplies the "anchor" the Office Action relies upon, but Yang's anchor is a geometric reference position for synthesizing a 3D model with the real world, not a service anchor”. However, as written in the previous office action Balmakhtar is nowhere relied on for the claim language “service anchor.” Balmakhtar is relied on for the claim language “determining one or more edge networks and one or more network slices based on (i) the request- and provisioning the Metaverse service using the one or more network slices and the one or more edge networks”. Balmakhtar teaches [0022] “Core network 121 selects a network slice to serve a metaverse session based on the metaverse type indicated by the metaverse service request”, i.e. network slicing for metaverse services based on a request. Additionally, Yang teaches using a “service anchor” to provide information to the Network interface 202 and the AR server 210, see FIG. 2. The anchor may be a 3D model with the real world as the applicant points out and described in [0038]. However, the anchor may also be [0039] an anchor for rendering virtual objects, such as placeable furniture using terminal anchoring metadata, i.e. using an anchor for a metaverse service, i.e. “a point in the user's space at which a localized Metaverse service is offered and can be invoked by the user” as described by the applicant, see “REMARKS” page 12 line 1.
Applicant alleges that: Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15, “Yang performs no network-slice or edge-network determination of any kind. Yang therefore cannot cure Balmakhtar's deficiency, because Yang never determines slices or edges, let alone based on the anchor”. However, Yang is not relied on for “network-slice or edge-network determination”. Balmakhtar teaches network-slicing or edge-network determination as described in the previous office action and above.
Applicant alleges that: Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15, “Yang refers only to a display-resolution parameter used "when setting the precision of the 3D model", not to identifying a service associated with the user's field of view”, and “Yang discloses "user input" in the context of determining where to place a 3D model for rendering, not user preferences for selecting among localized Metaverse services. Yang's disclosure thus does not teach the claimed service anchors”. However, Yang teaches as such, [0038] specifically states “The AR application 201 denotes a service logic that executes the AR service based on the user's input”, i.e. the returned metaverse service is provided based on the user’s input/preferences, and [0048] describes “Display resolution of user AR terminal: Resolution corresponding to the entire field of view (FoV) of the AR terminal may be used when setting the precision of the 3D model by the AR server”, i.e. the generated anchor may be based on user input, user input read as user preferences, and the FoV of the AR terminal. Additionally, see FIG. 2, showing Vision Engine 203 and AR Application 201 collecting respective data (FoV and user preferences/inputs) to generate the service anchor to be delivered to Network Interface 202 and AR Server 210.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al. (US 2022/0358728 A1, hereinafter Yang) in view of Balmakhtar et al. (US 2024/0292196 A1, hereinafter Balmakhtar).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a method for an application function comprising: receiving a request for a Metaverse service; identifying one or more service anchors ([0078] Referring to FIG. 6, at step 600, an AR terminal may initiate an AR service by executing an application program (or application) and obtain, at step 610, content anchoring metadata, wherein said method may be for "metaverse service support" according to [0007]) associated with (i) a field of view of a user ([Figure 6, 620] and [0078-0079] at step 620, the AR terminal may analyze the real world, to perform anchor identification, i.e. determining service anchors may be based on the real world, real world read as field of view, of the user of the AR device. Additionally, [0048] states "Resolution corresponding to the entire field of view (FoV) of the AR terminal may be used when setting the precision of the 3D model," i.e. service anchors may be based on the FoV of the user of the AR device) and (ii) preferences of the user ([0042] describes "the content processing may be set based on requirements for content anchoring metadata described below, results of real world analysis, and user input." Furthermore, [0038] describes "the AR application 201 denotes a service logic that executes the AR service based on the user's input," i.e. the service anchors may be based on the preferences of the user); selecting a service anchor from the one or more service anchors based on a condition ([0078] referring to FIG. 6, "perform anchor identification at step 630 using the content anchoring metadata, generate the terminal anchoring metadata," i.e. a service anchor is selected from a plurality of anchoring metadata to generate the appropriate terminal anchoring metadata, which is based on the conditions described above, and may also be based on "the location of the terminal" according to [claim 3]); -and (ii) the service anchor (depicted in FIG. 3, the anchoring metadata processor 304 may generate anchoring metadata, which may be used for requesting metadata services from the AR Server 310).
Yang is not relied on for the claim language determining one or more edge networks and one or more network slices based on (i) the request- and provisioning the Metaverse service using the one or more network slices and the one or more edge networks. However, Balmakhtar teaches [abstract] various embodiments which comprise of a wireless communication network configured to orchestrate metaverse services for wireless user devices. Balmakhtar also teaches determining one or more edge networks and one or more network slices ([0025] referring to FIG. 2, "the operations further comprises selecting a network slice to serve a metaverse session based on the metaverse type indicated by the metaverse service request (step 202)" and depicted in FIG. 3 and [0030] "one or more of servers 341 may be integrated into an edge node," i.e. determining an edge network and network slice to serve the metaverse session as depicted in FIG. 3 and described in FIG. 2 step 202) based on (i) the request- ([0025] referring to FIG. 2, step 201, "the operations of process 200 comprise receiving and processing a metaverse service request from a wireless user device that indicates a device location and a metaverse type (step 201)," i.e. based on the request) and provisioning the Metaverse service using the one or more network slices and the one or more edge networks ([Figure 2, step 204] and [0025] "selecting a server of the identified application servers based on a proximity between the device location and a geographic location of the server (step 204)").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to include the use of edge networks and network slices in regards to provisioning Metaverse services, as taught by Balmakhtar, in order to [0002] reduce jittering, lag, or other glitches (and latency [0027]) that decrease user experience, and to improve [0061] forwarding metaverse traffic to desired network destinations.
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches the condition for selecting the service anchor is based on at least one of a current location of the user and the preferences of the user ([0078] referring to FIG. 6, "perform anchor identification at step 630 using the content anchoring metadata, generate the terminal anchoring metadata," i.e. a service anchor is selected from a plurality of anchoring metadata to generate the appropriate terminal anchoring metadata, which is based on the conditions described above in claim 1 and [0032] and [0048], i.e. based on user preferences, and may also be based on [claim 3] "the location of the terminal").
Regarding claim 3, Yang is not relied on for the claim language updating the one or more network slices or the one or more edge networks based on a change in location of the user or change in the one or more service anchors. However, Balmakhtar teaches as such ([0027] metaverse orchestrator 332 monitors the capacity and geographic location of metaverse application servers 341 in metaverse node 340, wherein orchestrator 332 selects one of servers 341 to serve the metaverse session based on its proximity to UE 301. For example, orchestrator 332 may determine geographic distances between UE 301 and the identified ones of servers 341 and select a server that comprises a minimum distance, i.e. the network slices may be changed/updated based on the location change of the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to include the use of edge networks and network slices in regards to provisioning Metaverse services, as taught by Balmakhtar, in order to [0002] reduce jittering, lag, or other glitches (and latency [0027]) that decrease user experience, and to improve [0061] forwarding metaverse traffic to desired network destinations.
Regarding claim 4, Yang is not relied on for the claim language the request includes one or more of a service name, a service ID, a setup time, access control information, and a Metaverse service requirement descriptor. However, Balmakhtar teaches as such ([0022] describes "the metaverse service request indicates a device location for user device 101 and a metaverse type. Examples of metaverse types include virtual reality applications, augmented reality applications, and metaverse applications for voice/video conferencing, gaming, media streaming, peer-to-peer communications, and the like that are provided by metaverse servers 131. For example, one of metaverse servers 131 may host a metaverse application for voice/video conferencing while another one of metaverse servers 131 may host a metaverse application for virtual reality online gaming. Core network 121 selects a network slice to serve a metaverse session based on the metaverse type indicated by the metaverse service request," i.e. a metaverse type will include a metaverse service requirement descriptor, determining what slices need to be allocated to different metaverse services. Furthermore, [0033] describes a metaverse descriptor, used for aiding in allocating network slices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to include the use of edge networks and network slices in regards to provisioning Metaverse services, and including the use of a Metaverse service requirement descriptor, as taught by Balmakhtar, in order to [0002] reduce jittering, lag, or other glitches (and latency [0027]) that decrease user experience, and to improve [0061] forwarding metaverse traffic to desired network destinations.
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches -anchors associated with the field of view of the user ([0070] describes "the terminal anchoring metadata may be received directly from the AR terminal requesting the service," i.e. the megaservice request may be associated with the anchor(s) relating to the AR terminal's location, wherein said location may be based on the field of view of the user, as described in claim 1, [0042], and [0048]).
Yang is not relied on for the claim language identifying that each of the one or more service anchors use a unique network slice for providing the Metaverse service; reserving slice resources of the one or more service-; and activating reserved slice resources of a specified service anchor as the user is within a threshold distance of the specified service anchor. However, Balmakhtar teaches identifying that each of the one or more service anchors use a unique network slice for providing the Metaverse service ([0025] referring to FIG. 2, "the operations further comprise identifying application servers that provide metaverse services that have sufficient capacity to serve the metaverse session (step 203). The operations further comprise selecting a server of the identified application servers based on a proximity between the device location and a geographic location of the server (step 204)"); reserving slice resources of the one or more service- ([0060] describes "upon selection of an MCS, MCSC 631 directs the selected MCS to deploy the metaverse application that corresponds to the metaverse service descriptor. In some examples, the metaverse application that corresponds to the metaverse service descriptor may already be deployed and MCSC 631 may direct the selected MCS to reserve space for UE 601," i.e. upon selection of network slice, the slice will be reserved, wherein [0027] describes reserving of the network slice resources as described above may be based on "the geographic location of UE 301," i.e. a geographic location of the UE may be associated with the network resources); and activating reserved slice resources of a specified service anchor as the user is within a threshold distance of the specified service anchor ([0041] "MCSC 631 selects one of the identified servers to deploy the metaverse service descriptor based on its proximity to UE 601 to support the latency requirements of metaverse service descriptor," i.e. the reserved slice is deployed to the metaverse user, wherein there is a proximity threshold, described in [0037] and [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to include the use of edge networks and network slices in regards to provisioning Metaverse services, and the use of a threshold distance, as taught by Balmakhtar, in order to [0002] reduce jittering, lag, or other glitches (and latency [0027]) that decrease user experience, and to improve [0061] forwarding metaverse traffic to desired network destinations.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, further in view of Yang teaches an application function comprising: a transceiver; and a processor configured to: receive, via the transceiver ([0089] the server described above in connection with FIGS. 1 to 6 may correspond to the server of FIG. 8. Referring to FIG. 8, the server may include a transceiver 810, a memory 820, and a controller 830, wherein the controller 830 may include one or more processors, to execute the elements described in claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, further in view of Yang teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed cause a processor to- ([0095] When implemented in software, there may be provided a computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs (software modules). One or more programs stored in the computer readable storage medium are configured to be executed by one or more processors in an electronic device. One or more programs include instructions that enable the electronic device to execute the elements described in claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al. (US 2022/0358728 A1, hereinafter Yang) and of Balmakhtar et al. (US 2024/0292196 A1, hereinafter Balmakhtar) as applied in claims above, and further in view of MATE et al. (US 2025/0008288 A1, hereinafter Mate).
Regarding claim 6, Yang is not relied on for the claim language and allocating slice resources- However, Balmakhtar teaches as such (as described in claim 1 and [Figure 2, step 204] and [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to include the use of edge networks and network slices in regards to provisioning Metaverse services, as taught by Balmakhtar, in order to [0002] reduce jittering, lag, or other glitches (and latency [0027]) that decrease user experience, and to improve [0061] forwarding metaverse traffic to desired network destinations.
The combination of Yang and Balmakhtar is not relied on for the claim language identifying that a first service anchor and a second service anchor from the one or more service anchors have a same service priority; -of a same network slice based on identifying that the first service anchor and the second service anchor have the same service priority. However, Mate teaches [Figure 1] a method for obtaining a plurality of anchors for an AR scene/environment, wherein the method may comprise guidance metadata configured to assist in the adaptation of the at least one anchor parameter for the user of the AR device according to [0009]. Mate also teaches identifying that a first service anchor and a second service anchor from the one or more service anchors have a same service priority; -of a same network slice based on identifying that the first service anchor and the second service anchor have the same service priority ([0054] describes obtaining a plurality of anchors of an AR device, wherein anchors may be rendered based on a priority list of candidate mappings, wherein examples are given in the tables located between [0224] and [0226]. Additionally, the multitude of anchors may be based on the same or different objects, and then grouped together, i.e. given the same priority, depicted in FIG. 1c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yang and Balmakhtar to include the use of a priority system, as taught by Mate, in order to [0223] enable mapping of multiple anchors, in association with a priority list according to [0011].
Regarding claim 7, Yang is not relied on for the claim language scaling slice resources for the service anchor-. However, Balmakhtar teaches as such ([0028] "the network slicing employed by network 300 ensures that adequate network computing, storage, and communication resources are properly allocated to the requested metaverse sessions. As such, this resource allocation ensures high availability, satisfactory performance levels, and maintains other Service Level Agreements (SLA) criteria for the metaverse sessions," i.e. the slices may be scaled based on the anchor/metaverse service needs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to include the use of edge networks and network slices in regards to provisioning Metaverse services, as taught by Balmakhtar, in order to [0002] reduce jittering, lag, or other glitches (and latency [0027]) that decrease user experience, and to improve [0061] forwarding metaverse traffic to desired network destinations.
The combination of Yang and Balmakhtar is not relied on for the claim language identifying a service priority of the service anchor; -based on the service priority (as described in claim 6, and [0054] with examples from the tables located between [0224] and [0226]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yang and Balmakhtar to include the use of a priority system, as taught by Mate, in order to [0223] enable mapping of multiple anchors, in association with a priority list according to [0011].
Regarding claim 13, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
References Cited
Yang, Hyunkoo et al. (2022). Method and device for providing augmented reality (ar) service based on viewer environment (US 2022/0358728 A1). Filed 2022-05-05. (Priority 2021-05-10)
Balmakhtar, Marouane et al. (2024). Metaverse service orchestration in wireless communication networks (US 2024/0292196 A1). Filed 2023-02-27.
Mate, Sujeet Shyamsundar et al. (2025). A method and apparatus for ar rendering adaptation (US 2025/0008288 A1). Filed 2022-06-22. (Priority 2021-07-14)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW J DWYER whose telephone number is (571)272-5121. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. 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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. 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.
/MATTHEW JAMES DWYER/Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699
