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 6/14/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 6/14/2024 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 6 and 8 in the reply filed on 12/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
Claims 6, 8, and 10-17 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9 and 18 are cancelled.
Claims 6 and 8 are elected.
Claims 10-17 are non-elected and withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “step”, but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations recite the phrase “a step of”. This phrase does not link the word “step” to the transition word “for”. The term ‘step’ alone or the phrase ‘steps of’ tend to show that Section 112(f) does not govern that limitation (See MPEP 2181(I)(A). Where a method claim does not contain the term ‘step[s] for,’ a limitation of that claim cannot be construed as a step-plus-function limitation without a showing that the limitation contains no act." (See Masco Corp. v. United States, 303 F.3d 1316, 1327, 64 USPQ2d 1182, 1189 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In this case, the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “a step of arranging” and “a step of transmitting” in claims 6 and 8.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim limitations to recite “step for” and either: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochinga et al. (US 2014/0150045) in view of Hirota et al. (US 2016/0142744).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Mochinga teaches: A transmission method of identification information by a broadcasting wave that executes simultaneous broadcasting of a 2K broadcasting service and a 4K broadcasting service [broadcasting a simulcast of the full HD mode and the 4K2K mode including information associating simulcast programs (par. 38, 96, and 260-267)], the transmission method comprising:
a step of arranging, in at least one service to be a pair of the simultaneous broadcasting, identification information for identifying the other service to be the pair of the simultaneous broadcasting [including the ID of the other service channel (service_id) in the event group descriptor of EIT (Event Information Table) for a simulcast program (par. 96-100, Fig. 4, 15, and 20)] and
a step of transmitting the identification information in the one service [The transmission device 100 includes a multiplexing unit 107 and a transmission unit 108 for including the PSI/SI information including the EIT in the transport stream (par. 46, 49, 59, 77, 80, and 83, Fig. 1-2 and 4)],
wherein, when the other service to be the pair of simultaneous broadcasting service with the one service is included in a transport stream different from the one service, information for identifying a transport stream in which the other service is included is stored in the identification information [Fig. 20 illustrates two transport streams 1300a and 1300b for simulcast, and including a transport_stream_id and original_network_id relating to a service channel of the other program that is simulcast are included in the EIT 1302a and 1302b (par. 224-229, Fig. 20)], and
wherein, when the other service to be the pair of simultaneous broadcasting service with the one service is included in the same transport stream as the one service, storage of the information for identifying the transport stream in which the other service is included in the identification information is omitted [Fig. 4 illustrates one transport stream 300 for simulcast and omits the transport_stream_id and original_network_id relating to a service channel of the other program that is simulcast from the EIT 302 and 303 (par. 96-200, Fig. 4 and 15)].
While Mochinga discloses different network IDs, Mochinga does not explicitly disclose different physical channels.
Hirota teaches: broadcasting a 2K service and a 4K service through different physical channels [the transmitter 3 transmits the 2K video signal and the 4K video signal through different paths and/or different transmission schemes, each of the paths carrying separate transport streams (par. 30-31, 66, 71, 84, 171, and 185, Fig. 1-4)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mochinga and Hirota before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mochinga to include the different transport streams in different physical channels as disclosed by Hirota. The motivation for doing so would have been to smoothly and efficiently execute channel selection processing for high quality broadcast between 2K and 4K video and have less possibility of a failure in receiving the broadcast video (Hirota – par. 166-167). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Mochinga and Hirota to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Boyd whose telephone number is (571)270-0676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm PST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALEXANDER BOYD/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424