DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
General Information Matter
Please note, the instant Non-Provisional application (19/027,771) under prosecution at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been assigned to David Zarka (Examiner) in Art Unit 2449. To aid in correlating any papers for 19/027,771, all further correspondence regarding the instant application should be directed to the Examiner.
Provisional Applications
The instant application claims benefit to provisional application Nos. 63/646,666 (the ‘666 Prov.); 63/646,656 (the ‘656 Prov.); 63/646,650 (the ‘650 Prov.); and 63/646,682 (the ‘682 Prov.) filed on May 13, 2024; provisional application No. 63/574,206 (the ‘206 Prov.) filed on April 3, 2024; provisional application Nos. 63/573,266 (the ‘266 Prov.) and 63/573,260 (the ‘260 Prov.) filed on April 2, 2024; and provisional application No. 63/623,755 (the ‘755 Prov.) filed on January 22, 2024 under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
The instant application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the provisional application for which benefit is claimed. The disclosure of the invention in the provisional application and in the instant application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Prods., Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also MPEP § 211.05 (citing Transco and New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
The disclosures of the ‘666 Prov., the ‘656 Prov., the ‘650 Prov., the ‘682 Prov., the ‘206 Prov., the ‘266 Prov., the ‘260 Prov., and the ‘755 Prov. each fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for claims 1–20 of the instant application.
Notably, claim 1 recites
obtaining augmented reality (AR) data of a media component of at least one of audio and video;
determining a plurality of days of a week and any of a number of occurrences of and an end date of a 5G media-streaming (5GMS) background data transfer (BDT); and
controlling, based on an indication of a resource of a 5GMS media session handler (MSH) indicating any of a started, stopped, and teared-down state, transfer of a media stream of the media component by the 5GMS BDT according to a result of determining the plurality of days of the week and the any of the number of occurrences and end date.
The ‘666 Prov., the ‘656 Prov., the ‘650 Prov., the ‘682 Prov., the ‘206 Prov., the ‘266 Prov., the ‘260 Prov., and the ‘755 Prov. each fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).1 Accordingly, claims 1–20 are not entitled to the benefit of the ‘666 Prov., the ‘656 Prov., the ‘650 Prov., the ‘682 Prov., the ‘206 Prov., the ‘266 Prov., the ‘260 Prov., and the ‘755 Prov.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDSs filed February 13, 2025 and April 29, 2025 each comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The IDSs have been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
The IDS filed April 29, 2025 cites a PCT international search report. The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an IDS complying with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98.
37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list . . . must be submitted on a separate paper.”
Therefore, unless the references cited in the international search report comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information or any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the IDS, including all “statement” requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) recites
The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) for including unlabeled rectangular boxes. See Fig. 2, items 202, 203, 211, 212.
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) recites “Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed.” Moreover, 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(r) recites “Arrows may be used at the ends of lines, provided that their meaning is clear, as follows: (1) On a lead line, a freestanding arrow to indicate the entire section towards which it points.”
Fig. 1, item 100 is a reference character that does not indicate a surface or cross section on which it is placed. Thus, the drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) for failing to include lead lines for each reference character. Moreover, Fig. 1, item 100 appears to indicate the entire section towards which it points. Thus, the Examiner recommends adding to arrow at the end of the lead line.
See also Fig. 2, item 200; Fig. 5, item 500; Fig. 6, item 600; Fig. 7, item 700; Fig. 8, item 800; Fig. 9, item 900; Fig. 10, item 1000; Fig. 11, item 1100; Fig. 12, item 1101; Fig. 13, item 1300; Fig. 14, item 1400; Fig. 15, item 1500; Fig. 16, item 1600; Fig. 17, item 1700; Fig. 18, item 1800.
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(3) recites “Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.” See MPEP § 608.02.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(3) for failing to include letters measuring at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. See Figs. 1–4, 10–18.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the USPTO does not prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): “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 MPEP recites “[d]uring examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected.” MPEP § 2173.02(I) (citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” Id. See also id. § 2173.05(e)(discussing indefiniteness arising for terms lacking proper antecedent basis).
Claims 1–20 are rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 5–6, “any of a number of occurrences of and an end date of a 5G media-streaming (5GMS) background data transfer (BDT)” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the limitation refers to
(A) “any of a number of occurrences of
(B) “any of a number of occurrences of something additional and an end date of a 5G media-streaming (5GMS) background data transfer (BDT)”; or
(C) “any of a number of occurrences
It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation refers to (A). See MPEP § 2173.06 (reciting “When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important that the examiner state on the record how the claim term or phrase is being interpreted with respect to the prior art applied in the rejection.”; emphasis omitted).
Claim 8, lines 6–7; and claim 15, lines 5–6 by analogy.
Moreover, claim 2, lines 2–4; claim 9, lines 2–4; and claim 16, lines 2–4 must be consistent with the changes made to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Li et al. (US 2021/0168584 A1; PCT filed Mar. 15, 2019) in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0037031 A1; PCT filed Dec. 29, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, while Li teaches a method for video data transfer (intended use in italics; see MPEP § 2111.02), the method performed by at least one processor (“An LADN server may comprise an SCS/AS hosting a plurality of AFs.” at ¶ 51) and comprising:
obtaining data (“devices (e.g., UEs) used by the passengers in the train may also connect to the LADN to download movies and/or upload certain content in the devices” at ¶ 51) of a media component (fig. 6, item 607; “An LADN server may comprise an SCS/AS hosting a plurality of AFs.” at ¶ 51) of at least one of audio and video (“devices (e.g., UEs) used by the passengers in the train may also connect to the LADN to download movies and/or upload certain content in the devices” at ¶ 51);
determining a plurality of days of a week (“Desired time window” at ¶ 47; “Time window” at TABLE 3 and ¶ 102 including “Indicate the start time and end time for the scheduled data transfer. May also indicate this is a periodic data transfer.”; “the connection may be periodic. For example, the train may connect to the LADN 604 once a day around the same time, T1 601, and the Internet 608 around the same time T2 602, assuming it passes the station with the same schedule.” at ¶ 51) and any of a number of occurrences of and an end date (the term “any” by definition is “any part, quantity, or number”2 which may be zero) of a 5G media-streaming (5GMS) background data transfer (BDT) (fig. 4, item 404; “background data transfer in 5G network.” at ¶ 116); and
controlling, based on an indication of a resource (“The train may have communications circuitry enabling connecting to core network 603, the Internet 608, and a plurality of LADNs 605, 604, 606, and 607.” at ¶ 51) of a 5GMS media session handler (MSH) (fig. 6, items 601, 602) indicating any of a started, stopped, and teared-down state (“When the train arrives at a station, it may connect to an LADN” at ¶ 51), transfer of a media stream (“When the train arrives at a station, it may connect to an LADN, such as LADN 604, upload video recordings from the surveillance system and download some local advertisements for the billboards. The devices (e.g., UEs) used by the passengers in the train may also connect to the LADN to download movies and/or upload certain content in the devices for backup.” at ¶ 51) of the media component by the 5GMS BDT according to a result (fig. 4, item 413; “a background data transfer response message (step 413), which may include TTRI, Reference ID, and Possible transfer policies.” at ¶ 47) of determining the plurality of days of the week and the any of the number of occurrences and end date,
Li does not teach the data being augmented reality (AR) data.
Wang teaches AR data (“Specific service and applications in these categories include, e.g., . . . augmented reality” at ¶ 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Li’s data to be AR data as taught by Wang “for performance improvement.” Wang ¶ 343.
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches an apparatus (“An LADN server may comprise an SCS/AS hosting a plurality of AFs.” at ¶ 51) for video data transfer (intended use in italics; see MPEP § 2111.02), the apparatus comprising: a memory (“An LADN server” at ¶ 51 at least suggests including memory) storing instructions; and at least one processor (“An LADN server” at ¶ 51 at least suggests including at least one processor) configured to execute the instructions to implement operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing (“An LADN server” at ¶ 51 at least suggests including memory) instructions which when executed by a computer (“An LADN server may comprise an SCS/AS hosting a plurality of AFs.” at ¶ 51) cause the computer to implement operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 would be allowable if rewritten to (1) overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action; and (2) include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: US-20210352180-A1; US-20240380847-A1; US-20240007903-A1; US-20200351409-A1; US-20230353990-A1; US-20230080830-A1; US-20220159605-A1; US-20250063433-A1; US-20230252735-A1; US-20220239601-A1; WO-2024228529-A1; EP-4197136-B1;
“3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on 5G media streaming extensions; (Release 18)”, 3GPP TR 26.804, V18.1.0, June 2023 (161 pages total);
“Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); LTE; 5G; T8 reference point for Northbound APIs (3GPP TS 29.122 version 17.5.0 Release 17)”, ETSI TS 129 122, V17.5.0, May 2022 (484 pages total); and
“3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; 5G System; Background Data Transfer Policy Control Service; Stage 3 (Release 18)”, 3GPP TS 29.554, V18.2.0, December 2023 (38 pages total).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 The Examiner reminds Applicants that the instant Office action contains no rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is mentioned because that is the manner in determining whether claims 1–20 are not entitled to the benefit of the ‘666 Prov., the ‘656 Prov., the ‘650 Prov., the ‘682 Prov., the ‘206 Prov., the ‘266 Prov., the ‘260 Prov., and the ‘755 Prov.
2 “Any,” Merriam-Webster.com, 2026 (available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/any)(last visited July 15, 2026).
Prosecution Insights