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 .
Response to Election/Restriction
In response to the species requirement and Applicant’s election with traverse, the traverse is not persuasive. Since Applicant elected first species (claims 1-4, 6-8 and 14-26), Examiner examined the elected species.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 14-26 are drawn to the first species (fig. 16). First species drawn to render device perspective, which renders and splits frames; generates PPDUs and queuing MSDUs. Claims 27-36 are drawn to the second species. Second species drawn to a display device perspective, which is directed toward obtaining PPDUs associated with an application file, flushing the REO queue after obtaining the indication. First species does not include the step of obtaining at a reorder (REO) queue of the device and flushing the REO queue. The inventions would require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 14-17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ding et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0100421) in view of Wentink (US Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0230200).
Regarding claim 1, Ding et al discloses a method performed by a device (paragraph 8 [first device]), comprising:
rendering a plurality of frames to be provided to a second device (see at least paragraph 8 discloses a first device generating first data to be transmitted to an access point);
splitting each frame of the plurality of frames into a plurality of application files (see at least paragraph 8 discloses dividing the first data into a first data fragment and a second data fragment); and
for each application file of the plurality of application files:
generating a plurality of physical layer convergence protocol (PLCP) protocol data units (PPDUs) to include the application file (paragraph 112 discloses that the first data includes the first PPDU; second data includes the second PPDU), wherein:
each PPDU includes one or more media access control layer (MAC) service data units (MSDUs) associated with the application file (paragraph 115 discloses that the first PPDU includes first MPDU which includes MSDU; which includes first fragment; further see paragraph 116); and
queuing the MSDUs for transmission to the second device (paragraph 75 discloses that MSDU to queue for transmission to access point).
Ding et al specifically does not disclose the application file is identified by a port number and a differentiated services field codepoint (DSCP) value included in each MSDU of the plurality of PPDUs.
However, Wentink from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the application file is identified by a port number and a differentiated services field codepoint (DSCP) value included in each MSDU of the plurality of PPDUs (see at least paragraphs 9 and 41 discloses stream of video data frame wherein the DSCP value identifies the layered modulation scheme).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Wentink into the system of Ding et al for purpose of transmitting video data frames from source station to destination station; wherein the DSCP value identifies the layered modulation scheme.
Regarding claim 2, Wentink discloses queuing the MSDUs includes generating an MSDU queue in software for each application file, wherein each MSDU queue is identified by an internet protocol (IP) address, port number, and DSCP value (see at least paragraphs 38 and 41). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Wentink discloses each application file is associated with a traffic identifier (TID) that is associated with an access category (AC) of the application file (see at least paragraphs 41 and 42). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Ding et al discloses a device (paragraph 8 [first device]) configured for an extended reality (XR) experience, comprising: an interface (paragraph 31 [wireless interface]); and a processing system that includes one or more processors (paragraph 31 [processor]) and one or more memories (paragraph 31 [memory]) coupled with the one or more processors, the processing system configured to:
render a plurality of frames to be provided to a second device (see at least paragraph 8 discloses a first device generating first data to be transmitted to an access point);
split each frame of the plurality of frames into a plurality of application files (see at least paragraph 8 discloses dividing the first data into a first data fragment and a second data fragment); and
for each application file of the plurality of application files:
generate a plurality of physical layer convergence protocol (PLCP) protocol data units (PPDUs) to include the application file (paragraph 112 discloses that the first data includes the first PPDU; second data includes the second PPDU), wherein:
each PPDU includes one or more media access control layer (MAC) service data units (MSDUs) associated with the application file (paragraph 115 discloses that the first PPDU includes first MPDU which includes MSDU; which includes first fragment; further see paragraph 116); and
queue the MSDUs for transmission to the second device (paragraph 75 discloses that MSDU to queue for transmission to access point).
Ding et al specifically does not disclose the application file is identified by a port number and a differentiated services field codepoint (DSCP) value included in each MSDU of the plurality of PPDUs.
However, Wentink from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the application file is identified by a port number and a differentiated services field codepoint (DSCP) value included in each MSDU of the plurality of PPDUs (see at least paragraphs 9 and 41 discloses stream of video data frame wherein the DSCP value identifies the layered modulation scheme).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Wentink into the system of Ding et al for purpose of transmitting video data frames from source station to destination station; wherein the DSCP value identifies the layered modulation scheme.
Regarding claim 15, Wentink discloses queuing the MSDUs includes generating an MSDU queue in software for each application file, wherein each MSDU queue is identified by an internet protocol (IP) address, port number, and DSCP value (see at least paragraphs 37 and 41). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Wentink discloses each application file is associated with a traffic identifier (TID) that is associated with an access category (AC) of the application file (see at least paragraphs 41 and 42). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Wentink discloses the AC of the application file is associated with a priority of the application file (see at least paragraphs 41 and 42). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, Ding et al discloses the device includes a software enabled access point (SAP); and the second device includes a head mounted display (HMD) (see at least paragraphs 139).
Claims 4, 18, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ding et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0100421) in view of Wentink (US Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0230200) and further in view of Zhao et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0207834).
Regarding claim 4, Wentink discloses the AC of the application file is associated with a priority of the application file (see at least paragraphs 41 and 42). Same motivation as claim 1.
Ding et al and Wentink specifically do not disclose wherein the priority of the application file depends on whether the application file is a i-slice or a p-slice.
However, Zhao et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches wherein the priority of the application file depends on whether the application file is a i-slice or a p-slice (see at least paragraph 37 discloses frames can be i-slice, p-slice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Zhao et al into the system of Ding et al and Wentink for purpose of packets having slice; wherein partitions the data at the frame priority level.
Regarding claim 18, Ding et al and Wentink specifically do not disclose wherein the priority of the application file depends on whether the application file is a i-slice or a p-slice.
However, Zhao et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches wherein the priority of the application file depends on whether the application file is a i-slice or a p-slice (see at least paragraph 37 discloses frames can be i-slice, p-slice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Zhao et al into the system of Ding et al and Wentink for purpose of packets having slice; wherein partitions the data at the frame priority level.
Regarding claim 24, Zhao et al discloses the device is configured to use forward error correction (FEC) for transmitting one or more PPDUs to the second device (see at least paragraph 41). Same motivation as claim 4.
Regarding claim 25, Zhao et al discloses use of FEC for transmitting one or more PPDUs to the second device is associated with one or more of: a link quality between the device and the second device; one or more parameters of the second device; or one or more parameters of the plurality of frames (see at least paragraph 41). Same motivation as claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 19-23 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art are cited to show a method, which is considered pertinent to the claimed invention:
Chu et al (US Pat. No. 10,454,626) directed toward MSDU divided into plurality of fragments and intended for a communication device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/LITON MIAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights