CTNF 19/015,596 CTNF 82882 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1 – 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 , said claim limits the “identifying” of line 1 by, on lines 3 – 4, reciting “for traffic of the application to be sent to a second device”. It is unclear if this “identifying . . . for traffic . . . to be sent” language is intended to specify that the identification is required such that traffic may be sent (else no transmission can be made) or whether the identifying is performed on behalf of traffic that will be sent (regardless of any modality indication in the traffic). Alternatively, the “for” language could be intended to convey an intended use / result of the “identifying” step, and thus convey non-functional descriptive material that should not be accorded patentable weight. Regarding claim 10 and 19 , each of said claims recite language analogous to the language addressed above in claim 1, and thus suffer from analogous issues. Regarding claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, and 20 , each of said claims depends on one of claims 1, 10, and 19, and fails to clarify the issues addressed above. These claims thus inherit the issues of their respective parent claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1 – 6, 8, 10 – 15, 17, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baek (US-20260101233-A1). Regarding claim 1 , Baek shows a method, comprising: identifying ([90]), by a first device (e.g., the AF/AS of Fig. 2, discussed in [76-77]), a plurality of modalities relating to respective traffic types (e.g., audio, video, and haptic; see [43,46,49,51]) of a multi-modal flow ([53] discussing an “XR service-related information) of an application ([7,10-14] discussing an XR application), for traffic of the application to be sent to a second device (e.g., the UE1 or UE2 of Fig. 2; see the discussion of a UE <-> AF/AS flow provided in [54,57,61,63]); generating, by the first device, a first tag ([64-65,68,92-95], particularly the use of the “AF specific SF group ID”; i.e., application specific service flow group identifier, e.g., identifying audio or video data as shown in Fig. 2) for a first service data flow (SDF) for a first modality and a second tag for a second SDF for a second modality (Fig. 2, showing identification of haptic data), the first tag and the second tag indicating an association between the first SDF and the second SDF within the multi-modal flow ([68-70] discussing “XR data related to the same XR service”); and transmitting ([74,91] and Fig. 3 steps 303-305, where the information may be sent with, e.g., subscription information) , by the first device to a wireless communication node ([74-75, 92] discussing a 5G operating environment utilizing corresponding communication nodes), one or more signals ([104]) indicating the first tag and the second tag, for transmission of the traffic between the first device and the second device ([76-79,81], see “so that a multi-modality service may be provided” with, e.g., allowable delay between the different types of XR data as discussed in [77,82-84]) . Regarding claim 2 , Baek shows wherein the plurality of modalities comprises at least one of an audio modality ([43,51]), a video modality ([43,51]), a voice modality, a sensor modality, a control modality, or a file transfer protocol (FTP) modality. Regarding claim 3 , Baek shows wherein each modality of the plurality of modalities is associated with a respective SDF, and each SDF is mapped to a respective quality of service (QoS) flow ([107,109,111-112] discussing distinct QFI (Quality of Service Flow IDs) for UE1 and UE2, each receiving different parts of an XR session as visually illustrated in Fig. 2). Regarding claim 4 , Baek shows wherein the first SDF is mapped to a first QoS flow, and the second SDF is mapped to the first QoS flow ([66-70,76-77], e.g., [77]’s discussion of “XR service-related QoS information to be applied to the XR service flows”). Regarding claim 5 , Baek shows wherein the first tag is applied to a first portion of the traffic associated with the first modality on the first QoS flow, and the second tag is applied to a second portion of the traffic associated with the second modality on the first QoS flow ([107,109,111-112] discussing distinct QFI (Quality of Service Flow IDs) for UE1 and UE2, each receiving different parts of an XR session as visually illustrated in Fig. 2). Regarding claim 6 , Baek shows wherein a third SDF for a third modality of the plurality of modalities ([43,51] discussing three modalities; audio, video, and haptic) is mapped to a second QoS flow (Fig. 2, audio and video flows 16 and 17 are treated together where the haptic data flow 18 is treated differently; further discussion provided in [60,66-70]). Regarding claim 8 , Baek shows wherein transmitting the first tag and the second tag, causes the wireless communication node to coordinate a first portion of the traffic corresponding to the first SDF and a second portion of the traffic corresponding to the second SDF, for transmission to the second device, according to the first tag and the second tag ([67-70, 76-79] discussing coordination for achieving an “allowable delay difference” between the different traffic portions). Regarding claim 10 , Baek shows first device (e.g., the AF/AS of Fig. 2, discussed in [76-77]), comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 10) configured to: identify ([90]) a plurality of modalities relating to respective traffic types (e.g., audio, video, and haptic; see [43,46,49,51]) of a multi- modal flow of ([53] discussing an “XR service-related information) an application ([7,10-14] discussing an XR application), for traffic of the application to be sent to a second device (e.g., the UE1 or UE2 of Fig. 2; see the discussion of a UE <-> AF/AS flow provided in [54,57,61,63]); generate a first tag ([64-65,68,92-95], particularly the use of the “AF specific SF group ID”; i.e., application specific service flow group identifier, e.g., identifying audio or video data as shown in Fig. 2 for a first service data flow (SDF) for a first modality and a second tag for a second SDF for a second modality (Fig. 2, showing identification of haptic data), the first tag and the second tag indicating an association between the first SDF and the second SDF within the multi-modal flow ([68-70] discussing “XR data related to the same XR service”); and transmit ([74,91] and Fig. 3 steps 303-305, where the information may be sent with, e.g., subscription information), via a transmitter to a wireless communication node ([74-75, 92] discussing a 5G operating environment utilizing corresponding communication nodes), one or more signals indicating the first tag and the second tag, for transmission of the traffic between the first device and the second device ([76-79,81], see “so that a multi-modality service may be provided” with, e.g., allowable delay between the different types of XR data as discussed in [77,82-84]). Regarding claim 11 , the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 2. Regarding claim 12 , the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 3. Regarding claim 13 , the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 4. Regarding claim 14 , the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 5. Regarding claim 15 , the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 6. Regarding claim 17 , the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 8. Regarding claim 19 , the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 1. Regarding claim 20 , Baek shows wherein: each modality of the plurality of modalities is associated with a respective SDF, and wherein each SDF is mapped to a respective quality of service (QoS) flow ([107,109,111-112] discussing distinct QFI (Quality of Service Flow IDs) for UE1 and UE2, each receiving different parts of an XR session as visually illustrated in Fig. 2), including the first SDF and the second SDF being mapped to a first QoS flow ([66-70,76-77], e.g., [77]’s discussion of “XR service-related QoS information to be applied to the XR service flows”), and a third modality ([43,51] discussing three modalities; audio, video, and haptic) being mapped to a second QoS flow (Fig. 2, audio and video flows 16 and 17 are treated together where the haptic data flow 18 is treated differently; further discussion provided in [60,66-70]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Ativanichayaphong (US-20080249782-A1) . Regarding claim 7 , Baek shows claim 1, including the first device (one of the two endpoints of Fig. 2, i.e., one of the UE or the AF/AS). Baek does not show identifying the plurality of modalities based on the application executing. Ativanichayaphong shows identifying the plurality of modalities based on the application executing ([22]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the multi-modal data transfer of Baek with the application-based modality determination of Ativanichayaphong in order to better utilize available data in order to make a more accurate determination regarding data types which may be transmitted, and thus make better QoS provisioning decisions and deliver better service to the related session endpoints. Regarding claim 16 , the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 7 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Hong (Hong, W. and Zhang, M. English translation of WO 2022016406 A1. (Year: 2022)) . Regarding claim 9 , Baek shows generating, by the first device, for each modality of the plurality of modalities, a respective indicator indicating a relative quality of service (QoS) metric for the modality (Baek, [43,65-67,70]). Baek does not show where the modality data is relative to other of the plurality of modalities. Hong shows use of modality data relative to other of the plurality of modalities (pg. 5 lines 9-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the multi-modal data transfer of Baek with the modality comparison data of Hong in order to improve the accuracy of the resultant multi-modal processing (pg. 3 lines 30-44, pg. 4 lines 31-35, pg. 5 lines 9-18). Regarding claim 18 , the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 9 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes: Jheng (US-20180324631-A1), Somashekar (US-20250247710-A1), Lee (US-20250175912-A1), Wang (Wang, Lei, et al. "Resource allocation for multi-traffic in cross-modal communications." IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management 20.1: 60-72. (Year: 2022), and Huang (Huang, Zhenglei, et al. "Standard evolution of 5G-advanced and future mobile network for extended reality and metaverse." IEEE Internet of Things Magazine 6.1. (Year: 2023). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M MACILWINEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 5:00. 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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571) 272 - 3949. 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. JOHN MACILWINEN Primary Examiner Art Unit 2442 /JOHN M MACILWINEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454 Application/Control Number: 19/015,596 Page 2 Art Unit: 2454 Application/Control Number: 19/015,596 Page 3 Art Unit: 2454 Application/Control Number: 19/015,596 Page 4 Art Unit: 2454 Application/Control Number: 19/015,596 Page 5 Art Unit: 2454 Application/Control Number: 19/015,596 Page 6 Art Unit: 2454 Application/Control Number: 19/015,596 Page 7 Art Unit: 2454 Application/Control Number: 19/015,596 Page 8 Art Unit: 2454 Application/Control Number: 19/015,596 Page 9 Art Unit: 2454 Application/Control Number: 19/015,596 Page 10 Art Unit: 2454 Application/Control Number: 19/015,596 Page 11 Art Unit: 2454
Prosecution Insights