CTFR 18/963,294 CTFR 84675 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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, see Remarks pg. 5, filed 3/17/2026, with respect to the summary of the Office Action and the Status of the Claims are herein acknowledged. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 5, filed 3/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. The examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly amended limitations in view of the prior art of record. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art of record in order to address the newly presented limitations. In particular, the applicant argues, in part, “Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest at least the emphasized portions as recited in claim 1.” See Remarks pg. 5-6 filed 3/17/2026. First, in response to the applicant’s argument that the Final Office Action fails to meet the standards cited by the applicant (i.e., Section 2142 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (M.P.E.P.) and Section 2143.03), 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). More importantly, on the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court stated that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc. , 425 U.S. 273, 96 S. Ct. 1532, 47 L. Ed. 2d 784 (1976)). The Court further reiterated that in circumstances where the combination of two pre-existing elements did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation, the patent failed under 35 U.S.C. 103. See id. at 416-417 (citing Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. , 396 U.S. 57, 90 S. Ct. 305, 24 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1969)). The analysis of a rejection on obviousness grounds need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. See id. at 418. The obvious analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation. Id. at 419. Further, the Court stated that common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. See id. at 420. First, applicant argues the following in Remarks pg. 6-7, filed 3/17/2026: In the portions cited by the Office Action, Yim discusses a service category field of a SMT. Specifically, Yim discusses that when "an SMT of the ASTC standard s used to signal a hybrid broadcasting service in the hybrid broadcasting system ... the hybrid broadcasting service may be displayed through a 'service category (service_category)' field of the SMT." Yim, ¶ [0066] Yim also discusses that a "component priority descriptor of a hybrid broadcasting service system .. .is used to signal whether the component transmitted to provide a hybrid broadcasting service includes contents that are used as necessary factors for providing a hybrid broadcasting service. The component that must be preferentially received in the broadcasting communication integration environment so the receiving device may combine data and provide a service when receiving the component that must be preferentially received." Yim, ¶ [0076]. In that, Yim discloses a structure for a hybrid broadcast service in which component descriptors may indicate priority information related to receiving certain service components. That is, the receiver determines which data or service components to receive based on the network environment or the capability of the receiving device. Accordingly, the priority-related information in Yim is used by the receiver as a reference for receiver-side decision making regarding data reception. However, this description fails to teach or suggest at least "a Service Priority Table (SPT) and an access rule to a service platform using a broadcast signal" and "the service platform determines the service provision order by setting the service provision order according to a predetermined priority defined in the service priority table" let alone "wherein the service priority table includes a service priority value, a service priority description, a criterion for determining service priority, a service priority activation time, and a service priority deactivation time," as recited in amended independent claim 1. Kwak does not cure the deficiencies of Yim. Kwak is generally rated to "a broadcast signal transmitting method." Kwak, Abstract. Kwak generally discusses the generation and processing of low level signaling (LLS) information in an ATSC 3.0 broadcasting system. However, Kwak mainly addresses signal transmission mechanisms and processing of signaling messaging at a protocol level. However, Kwak fails to teach anything about the Service priority table. That is, Kwak is silent with regards to "the service platform determines the service provision order by setting the service provision order according to a pre-determined priority defined in the service priority table" let alone "wherein the service priority table includes a service priority value, a service priority description, a criterion for determining service priority, a service priority activation time, and a service priority deactivation time," as recited in amended independent claim 1. The ASTC Standard A/311 also does not the cure the deficiencies of Yim nor Kwak. The ATSC Standard A/311 generally describes signaling and service delivery mechanisms in ATSC 3.0 systems. The standard defines signaling and service delivery mechanisms but the Standard does not disclose defining and transmitting a service priority table nor that the service provision order is based on a pre-determined priority defined in such a table. That is, the ASTC Standard A/311 fails to teach or suggest at least ""the service platform determines the service provision order by setting the service provision order according to a pre-determined priority defined in the service priority table" let alone "wherein the service priority table includes a service priority value, a service priority description, a criterion for determining service priority, a service priority activation time, and a service priority deactivation time," as recited in amended independent claim 1.Therefore, independent claim 1 is allowable over Yim, Kwak, and the ASTC Standard A/311. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s analysis of the claims in relation to the teachings of the prior art. First, for example, with respect to the teachings of Yim, the applicant states, as discussed above, “That is, the receiver determines which data or service components to receive based on the network environment or the capability of the receiving device. Accordingly, the priority-related information in Yim is used by the receiver as a reference for receiver-side decision making regarding data reception.” All things considered, whereas Yim discloses a structure for a hybrid broadcast service in which component descriptors may indicate priority information related to receiving certain service components and a client receiver determines which data or service components to receive based on the network environment or the capability of the receiving device, Yim further discloses a structure for a hybrid broadcast service in which component descriptors may indicate priority information related to receiving certain service components from a service platform. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a service platform is able to communicate with a delivering apparatus for obtaining a broadcast signal. For example, wee Yim Fig. 15-16 and para 81-100 disclosing a broadcast transmitter 1560 receiving signals including tables comprising access rules from components 1520, 1530, 1540, and 1550 and transmitting the broadcast signals via a broadcasting network to elements in Fig. 16 that are ultimately received at service provider 1670 for transmission to a client receiver. See Fig. 12 and para 75-77 for a description of table information. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that Yim does disclose the claimed apparatus for transmitting a broadcast signal based on ATSC 3.0 and a service platform receiving the broadcast information before being delivered to a client receiver for determining which data or service components to receive based on the network environment or the capability of the receiving device. All things considered, the applicant’s arguments regarding the deficiencies of the prior art are not persuasive. Independent claim 7 recites similar subject matter. Therefore, independent claim 7 is rejected on obviousness grounds as will be discussed in the rejection of independent claim 1. Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 depend from one of independent claims 1 and 7 and are therefore not allowable for at least the same reasons over Yim, Kwak, and ASTC Standard A/311 as independent claims 1 and 7. Accordingly, the examiner will set forth a new grounds of rejection in order to address the newly amended limitations. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim; Hyun-Jeong et al. US 20160105727 A1 (hereafter Yim) and in further view of KWAK; Minsung et al. US 20200359067 A1 (hereafter Kwak) and in further view of Advanced Television Systems Committee; ATSC Standard: Signaling, Delivery, Synchronization, and Error Protection, Doc. A/331:2023-10, 4 October 2023, ppgs. 1-236 (hereafter ATSC Standard A/331) . Regarding claim 1, “a method for providing a service, comprising: delivering, by an apparatus for transmitting a broadcast signal based on ATSC 3.0, a Service Priority Table (SPT) and an access rule to a service platform using a broadcast signal; and determining, by the service platform, a service provision order in consideration of the service priority table and the access rule and providing, by the service platform, services according to the determined service provision order, wherein the service platform provides various services, including a broadcast service, based on sharing of limited frequency and channel resources” Yim para 65-68, 75-77 teaches a table for transmitting services data comprising category and comprising identifier information for identifying the respective components are used so that the transmitting device may notify the receiving device of information on the components and their respective profiles; see also para 75-77 disclosing a component priority descriptor is used to signal whether the component transmitted to provide a hybrid broadcasting service includes contents that are used as necessary factors for providing a hybrid broadcasting service. The component that must be preferentially received in the broadcasting communication integrating environment so the receiving device may combine data and provide a service when receiving the component that must be preferentially received. See also Yim para 79-80 disclosing a capability descriptor which is understood as providing access rules to the receiving device. All things considered, Yim discloses a structure for a hybrid broadcast service in which component descriptors may indicate priority information related to receiving certain service components. That is, the receiver determines which data or service components to receive based on the network environment or the capability of the receiving device. Accordingly, the priority-related information in Yim is used by the receiver as a reference for receiver-side decision making regarding data reception. More importantly, whereas Yim discloses a structure for a hybrid broadcast service in which component descriptors may indicate priority information related to receiving certain service components from a service platform, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a service platform is able to communicate with a delivering apparatus for obtaining a broadcast signal. See Yim Fig. 15-16 and para 81-100 disclosing a broadcast transmitter 1560 receiving signals comprising tables comprising access rules from components 1520, 1530, 1540, and 1550 and transmitting the broadcast signals via a broadcasting network to elements in Fig. 16 that are ultimately received at service provider 1670 for transmission to a client receiver. Yim does not explicitly reference sharing of limited frequency and channel resources. In an analogous art, Kwak discloses the deficiency of Yim (see para 338 providing live media based on a priority attribute; see also para 15 present invention can achieve transmission flexibility by transmitting various broadcast services through the same radio frequency (RF) signal bandwidth). The prior art ATSC Standard A/331 teaches that multiple stations operate on a single RF channel with a substantial degree of independence wherein each Broadcaster sends their services under a unique group (see pg. 19-20 Section 5.5 and Section 6.5.1 disclosing priority attributes). With respect to “wherein the service platform determines the service provision order by setting the service provision order according to a pre-determined priority defined in the service priority table, and wherein the service priority table includes a service priority value, a service priority description, a criterion for determining service priority, a service priority activation time, and a service priority deactivation time,” Kwak discloses para 338 providing live media based on a priority attribute identifies the service priority value and description of the service and depending on the value, priority will be established. See also ATSC Standard A/331 pg. 104 disclosing start and end time; see also Yim para 65-68, 75-77 teaches a table for transmitting services data comprising category and comprising identifier information for identifying the respective components are used so that the transmitting device may notify the receiving device of information on the components and their respective profiles; see also para 75-77 disclosing a component priority descriptor is used to signal whether the component transmitted to provide a hybrid broadcasting service includes contents that are used as necessary factors for providing a hybrid broadcasting service. The component that must be preferentially received in the broadcasting communication integrating environment so the receiving device may combine data and provide a service when receiving the component that must be preferentially received. See also Yim para 79-80 disclosing a capability descriptor which is understood as providing access rules to the receiving device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yim for providing a service comprising delivering, by an apparatus for transmitting a broadcast signal based on ATSC 3.0 a table identifying service priorities and rules for accessing the services to enable the service platform to determine an order of delivering said services by further incorporating known elements of Kwak invention for signaling the identifier of a broadcast stream wherein a service provider may be enabled to choose on a service-by-service basis to affect the operation of a receiver based on media priority because the prior art to ATSC Standard A/331 teaches that multiple stations operate on a single RF channel with a substantial degree of independence wherein each Broadcaster sends their services under a unique group. Regarding claim 2, “wherein the access rule includes access permission based on the service priority” is further rejected as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 wherein Kwak discloses the deficiency of Yim (see para 338 providing live media based on a priority attribute identifies the service priority value and description of the service and depending on the value, priority will be established. See also ATSC Standard A/331 pg. 104 disclosing start and end time; see also Yim para 65-68, 75-77 teaches a table for transmitting services data comprising category and comprising identifier information for identifying the respective components are used so that the transmitting device may notify the receiving device of information on the components and their respective profiles; see also para 75-77 disclosing a component priority descriptor is used to signal whether the component transmitted to provide a hybrid broadcasting service includes contents that are used as necessary factors for providing a hybrid broadcasting service. The component that must be preferentially received in the broadcasting communication integrating environment so the receiving device may combine data and provide a service when receiving the component that must be preferentially received. See also Yim para 79-80 disclosing a capability descriptor which is understood as providing access rules to the receiving device. Regarding claim 3, “wherein delivering the service priority table and the access rule comprises defining the service priority table and the access rule in sub-attributes of a Service List Table (SLT), and transmitting the SLT to the service platform through Low Level Signaling (LLS)” is further rejected as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-2 wherein ATSC Standard A/331 Section 7.2.4.1.1 teaches SLT signaling comprising component information. See also Kwak para 51 and 67-77 and 84-90 disclosing attributes. Regarding claim 4, “wherein delivering the service priority table and the access rule comprises generating a user-defined table through an extended definition of Low Level Signaling (LLS), defining the service priority table and the access rule in the user-defined table, and transmitting the user-defined table to the service platform through the LLS” is further rejected as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-3 wherein ATSC Standard A/331 Section G.4.1 pg. 227 teaches LLS channels deliver presentation information including priority, intended audience. Regarding claim 5, “wherein the service platform performs a priority-based datacasting service, capacity and bandwidth optimization, and a customized datacasting service for a specific user group based on the service priority table and access rule defined in a form specialized for datacasting” is further rejected as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-4 wherein media content is delivered based on priority attributes and wherein ATSC Standard A/331 pg. 65 teaches bandwidth optimization wherein “A 32-bit unsigned integer which, when present, shall represent the maximum bit-rate required by this LCT channel. It shall be specified by using the Application Specific (AS) bandwidth modifier, at the media level, in RFC 4566 [21]. The AS bandwidth for an LCT channel of the parent ROUTE session shall be the largest value among the sum of the sizes of all packets transmitted during any one second long period of the session, expressed in kilobits. The size of the packet shall be the complete packet, i.e. comprising IP, UDP and ROUTE headers, and the data payload. Absence of this attribute shall imply that the maximum bit-rate required by this LCT channel is unknown.” See also ATSC Standard A/331 Section 8.1.2.2 reducing latency by the receiver during initial acquisition of the Service while meeting bandwidth constraints. See also ATSC Standard A/331 Section G.4.1 pg. 227 teaches LLS channels deliver presentation information including priority, intended audience. Regarding claim 6, “wherein the service priority table and access rule defined in the form specialized for datacasting include a target user group, a type of datacasting, a target region of datacasting, an allowed access type, and a criterion and condition for allowing access” is further rejected as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-5 wherein Yim para 65-68, 75-77 teaches a table for transmitting services data comprising category and comprising identifier information for identifying the respective components are used so that the transmitting device may notify the receiving device of information on the components and their respective profiles; see also para 75-77 disclosing a component priority descriptor is used to signal whether the component transmitted to provide a hybrid broadcasting service includes contents that are used as necessary factors for providing a hybrid broadcasting service. The component that must be preferentially received in the broadcasting communication integrating environment so the receiving device may combine data and provide a service when receiving the component that must be preferentially received. See also Yim para 79-80 disclosing a capability descriptor which is understood as providing access rules to the receiving device. See also ATSC Standard A/331 Section 7.1.10 and pg. 218 discussing regional service availability indicators would also entail a target user group in a particular region; pg. 41 disclosing target audience group and subgroups. Regarding the apparatus claims 7-12 the claims are grouped and rejected with the method claims 1-6 because the steps of the method claims are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-6 and because the steps of the method are easily converted into elements of an apparatus by one of ordinary skill in the art. CONCLUSION 07-40 AIA 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 ALFONSO CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3950. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10am to 6pm. 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /ALFONSO CASTRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/963,294 Page 2 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/963,294 Page 3 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/963,294 Page 4 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/963,294 Page 5 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/963,294 Page 6 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/963,294 Page 7 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/963,294 Page 8 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/963,294 Page 9 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/963,294 Page 10 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/963,294 Page 11 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/963,294 Page 12 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/963,294 Page 13 Art Unit: 2421
Prosecution Insights