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 . The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claim(s) 34 and 38 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 34 recites an apparatus, but provides no structural limitation. Claim 38 similarly recites an apparatus, without providing any structural limitations.
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(s) 1, 25, 30, 34 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20120281138-A1 to Choi et al. (“Choi”).
As to claim 1, Choi disclose(s) a method of enriching user plane traffic in a core network domain, CND, of a wireless communication network, the method comprising:
detecting user plane traffic that requires an enrichment with sensual content different from audio content and video content; (Choi; request sensory effect metadata from a sensory effect service provider based on movie, i.e. video/audio media; [0058])
retrieving the sensual content from a first CND database; (Choi; Fig. 7; Sensory effect metadata 704 retrieves from Sensory effect service provider 702; [0086])
and enriching the user plane traffic with the retrieved sensual content. (Choi; Fig. 7; both the media and sensory effect data is transmitted to the service consumer 710; [0086])
As to claim 25, Choi disclose(s) the method of claim 1,wherein the sensual content is configured to control a generator capable of outputting a sensual medium. (Choi; Fig. 3; Sensory effect generator; [0063])
As to claim 30, Choi disclose(s) a method of controlling content provision by a core network domain, CND, of a wireless communication network, the method comprising the following steps being performed in a content recipient domain:
transmitting a control message to the CND, the control message including an indication of a communication channel for reception of sensual content different from audio content and video content; (Choi; request sensory effect metadata from a sensory effect service provider based on movie, i.e. video/audio media; [0058])
and receiving the sensual content via the indicated communication channel. (Choi; Fig. 7; Sensory effect metadata 704 retrieves from Sensory effect service provider 702; [0086])
As to claim 34, Choi disclose(s) an apparatus or apparatus system for enriching user plane traffic in a core network domain, CND, of a wireless communication network, the apparatus or apparatus system being configured to:
detect user plane traffic that requires an enrichment with sensual content different from audio content and video content;
retrieve the sensual content from a first CND database;
and enrich the user plane traffic with the retrieved sensual content.
See similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 38, Choi disclose(s) an apparatus for controlling, from a content recipient domain, content provision by a core network domain, CND, of a wireless communication network, the apparatus being configured to:
transmit a control message to the CND, the control message including an indication of a communication channel for reception of sensual content different from audio content and video content;
and receive the sensual content via the indicated communication channel.
See similar rejection to claim 30.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20140115140-A1 to Jin et al. (“Jin”).
As to claim 2, Choi disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose wherein the user plane traffic originates from a content provider domain, CPD, and wherein the sensual content to be retrieved from the first CND database has been configured by the CND in response to a configuration message from the CPD.
Jin discloses wherein the user plane traffic originates from a content provider domain, CPD, and wherein the sensual content to be retrieved from the first CND database has been configured by the CND in response to a configuration message from the CPD. (Jin; client capability is queried and content is provided if the client device has the capability to present the content; [0014])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the streaming of content of Choi and the configuration message of Jin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with streaming content. Using the client capability configuration message of Jin would allow for the streaming of content to be configured by the server as opposed to being requested by the client.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 3, Choi-Jin disclose(s) the method of claim 2, comprising receiving the configuration message from the CPD, the configuration message including at least one of a sensual type identifier, a sensual content identifier, and sensual content. (Choi; Fig. 13; type of effect, targetID, effect information; [0086])
As to claim 5, Choi disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose comprising transmitting a capability disclosure message to a, or the, content provider domain, wherein the capability disclosure message is indicative of the CND supporting user plane traffic enrichment with sensual content as a service.
Jin discloses comprising transmitting a capability disclosure message to a, or the, content provider domain, wherein the capability disclosure message is indicative of the CND supporting user plane traffic enrichment with sensual content as a service. (Jin; client capability is queried and content is provided if the client device has the capability to present the content; [0014])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the streaming of content of Choi and the capability messages of Jin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with streaming content. Using the client capability configuration message of Jin would allow for the streaming of content to be configured by the server as opposed to being requested by the client.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi-Jin in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20160171767-A1 to ANDERSON et al. (“ANDERSON”).
As to claim 4, Choi-Jin disclose(s) the method of claim 3,
But does not expressly disclose wherein the configuration message includes the sensual content in association with at least the sensual content identifier, and comprising storing the sensual content in association with the sensual content identifier in the first CND database.
ANDERSON discloses wherein the configuration message includes the sensual content in association with at least the sensual content identifier, and comprising storing the sensual content in association with the sensual content identifier in the first CND database. (ANDERSON; augmented reality database 230; [0025])\
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the augmented reality database of ANDERSON and the sensory content of Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with augmented or sensory content. Using the database of ANDERSON would allow for the sensory content of Choi to stored and retrieved efficiently.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 8, 13, 14 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Choi in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20070258460-A1 to Momtahan et al. (“Momtahan”).
As to claim 8, Choi disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose wherein user plane traffic enrichment with sensual content is supported by the CND as a service on a subscription basis.
Momtahan discloses wherein user plane traffic enrichment with sensual content is supported by the CND as a service on a subscription basis. (Momtahan; subscriber specific content capabilities; [0021];[0039])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the subscriptions of Momtahan and the streaming content of Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with streaming content. Using the subscription of Momtahan would allow for the content of Choi to be customized to a specific subscriber.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 13, Choi disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose wherein detecting the user plane traffic comprises at least one of:
applying one or more traffic detection rules to the user plane traffic;
performing traffic analytics;
detecting predefined traffic flows.
Momtahan discloses wherein detecting the user plane traffic comprises at least one of:
applying one or more traffic detection rules to the user plane traffic;
performing traffic analytics;
detecting predefined traffic flows.
(Momtahan; traffic shaper, deep packet inspector; [0063])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the traffic shaping of Momtahan and the streaming of content of Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with streaming content. Using the traffic shaping of Momtahan would allow for streams to be customized to specific requirements.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 14, Choi-Momtahan disclose(s) the method of claim 13, comprising receiving, from at least one of a content provider domain, CPD, and a content recipient domain, CRD, information for generating the one or more traffic detection rules. (Momtahan; QoS policies; [0046])
As to claim 31, Choi disclose(s) the method of claim 30,
But does not expressly disclose wherein the control message is a session establishment message. (Momtahan; establishing content session; [0012])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sensory content streaming of Choi and the session establishment of Momtahan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with streaming content. Using the session establishment for streaming content was well known to those of ordinary skill in the at the time of invention.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5606. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, OSCAR LOUIE can be reached on (571)270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445