Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/361,409

DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 28, 2023
Examiner
THOMPSON, JR, OTIS L
Art Unit
2477
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
890 granted / 1002 resolved
+30.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1034
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
§103
50.2%
+10.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
9.0%
-31.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1002 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 16 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (US 2017/0229094). Regarding claim 16, Takahashi discloses a method, comprising: obtaining service data (Paragraph 18, The storage unit 15 is configured to store various types of data, including image data [service data]); and sending first data (Paragraph 17, a source device 10 configured to send image data and a display device 20 (sink device) configured to receive the image data and display an image; Paragraph 19, The control unit 12 is configured to convert…the image data to be sent to the display device 20 into image data in a data format conforming to the eDP standard [first data]), wherein the first data is obtained based on the service data (Paragraph 19, The control unit 12 is configured to convert…the image data to be sent to the display device 20 into image data in a data format conforming to the eDP standard [first data based on the image data (service data)]), wherein a data structure of the first data is the same as a data structure of second data (Paragraph 19 and figure 1, The first link training processing unit 121 is configured to, by controlling the communication unit 13, perform link training in accordance with an eDP protocol [data structure] (first link training) [second data]…The control unit 12 is configured to convert…the image data to be sent to the display device 20 into image data in a data format conforming to the eDP standard [data structure]), the second data is used for performing link training (Paragraph 19 and figure 1, The first link training processing unit 121 is configured to, by controlling the communication unit 13, perform link training in accordance with an eDP protocol (first link training) [second data]), and the link training is performed before the first data is sent (Paragraph 19, first link training, then establish [link up] transmission path, prepare the image data to be sent or received, image data converted to eDP standard after link up has been established, and send image data from source device 10 to sink device 20 over transmission line 30 via respective eDP interfaces of source and sink devices). Regarding claim 25, Takahashi discloses a method, comprising: receiving first data (Paragraph 17, a source device 10 configured to send image data and a display device 20 (sink device) configured to receive the image data and display an image; Paragraph 19, The control unit 12 is configured to convert…the image data to be sent to the display device 20 into image data in a data format conforming to the eDP standard [first data]), wherein the first data is obtained based on service data (Paragraph 19, The control unit 12 is configured to convert…the image data to be sent to the display device 20 into image data in a data format conforming to the eDP standard [first data based on the image data (service data)]); obtaining service data (Paragraphs 17-21, at the sink unit/display device 20, the image data [service data] is received in the eDP protocol format and processed for display by the control unit 22 and the image processing unit 26), wherein a data structure of the first data is the same as a data structure of second data (Paragraph 19 and figure 1, The first link training processing unit 121 is configured to, by controlling the communication unit 13, perform link training in accordance with an eDP protocol [data structure] (first link training) [second data]…The control unit 12 is configured to convert…the image data to be sent to the display device 20 into image data in a data format conforming to the eDP standard [data structure]), the second data is used for performing link training (Paragraph 19 and figure 1, The first link training processing unit 121 is configured to, by controlling the communication unit 13, perform link training in accordance with an eDP protocol (first link training) [second data]), and the link training is performed before the first data is sent (Paragraph 19, first link training, then establish [link up] transmission path, prepare the image data to be sent or received, image data converted to eDP standard after link up has been established, and send image data from source device 10 to sink device 20 over transmission line 30 via respective eDP interfaces of source and sink devices). 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. 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. Claim(s) 17 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 2004/0221056). Regarding claims 17 and 26, Takahashi discloses the claimed invention above but does not disclose the following limitations that are disclosed by Kobayashi: wherein the first data comprises a first identifier, and the first identifier identifies that the first data comprises service data (Kobayashi, Paragraph 69, link training performed on a main link between a source device and sink device; Paragraph 76, the main link packet headers serve as stream identification numbers thereby greatly reducing overhead and maximizing link bandwidth; Paragraph 81, stream source 1206 sends stream attributes to the source link layer 1214 that is then transmitted to the receiver over the auxiliary channel 224. These attributes are the information used by the receiver to identify the packets of a particular stream). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takahashi with the cited disclosure from Kobayashi in order to reduce overhead and maximize link bandwidth (Kobayashi, Paragraph 76). Claim(s) 18, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Kobayashi as applied to claims 17 and 26 above, and further in view of Zeng (US 7,853,731). Regarding claim 18, Takahashi in view of Kobayashi discloses the claimed invention above but does not disclose the following limitations that are disclosed by Zeng: wherein: the first data further comprises a third identifier, wherein the third identifier is configured for character delimitation, inter-channel alignment processing, or periodic link locking detection during transmission of the service data; and the third identifier is arranged between the first identifier and the service data (Zeng, Abstract, Link training is then performed between the source device and the sink device utilizing the first set of preset parameter and the link status (bit lock, symbol lock and inter-lane alignment) of the DisplayPort device is then read). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takahashi and Kobayashi with the cited disclosure from Zeng in order to perform link training using sets of parameters until the link training is successful (Zeng, Abstract). Regarding claim 28, Takahashi in view of Kobayashi discloses the claimed invention above but does not disclose the following limitations that are disclosed by Zeng: wherein: the first data further comprises a third identifier, wherein the third identifier is configured for inter-channel alignment processing during transmission of the service data; and the third identifier is arranged between the first identifier and the service data (Zeng, Abstract, Link training is then performed between the source device and the sink device utilizing the first set of preset parameter and the link status (bit lock, symbol lock and inter-lane alignment) of the DisplayPort device is then read). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takahashi and Kobayashi with the cited disclosure from Zeng in order to perform link training using sets of parameters until the link training is successful (Zeng, Abstract). Regarding claim 29, Takahashi in view of Kobayashi discloses the claimed invention above but does not disclose the following limitations that are disclosed by Zeng: wherein: the first data further comprises a third identifier, wherein the third identifier is configured for periodic link locking detection during transmission of the service data; and the third identifier is arranged between the first identifier and the service data (Zeng, Abstract, Link training is then performed between the source device and the sink device utilizing the first set of preset parameter and the link status (bit lock, symbol lock and inter-lane alignment) of the DisplayPort device is then read). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takahashi and Kobayashi with the cited disclosure from Zeng in order to perform link training using sets of parameters until the link training is successful (Zeng, Abstract). Claim(s) 19, 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Das Sharma et al. (US 2019/0042380). Regarding claim 19, Takahashi discloses the claimed invention above as well as wherein before sending the first data, the method further comprises: sending the second data, wherein the second data is obtained based on a training pattern, and the training pattern is configured for performing the link training (Takahashi, Paragraph 19, The first link training processing unit 121 is configured to, by controlling the communication unit 13, perform link training in accordance with an eDP protocol (first link training), then establish [link up] transmission path, prepare the image data to be sent or received, image data converted to eDP standard after link up has been established, and send image data from source device 10 to sink device 20 over transmission line 30 via respective eDP interfaces of source and sink devices). Takahashi does not disclose the following limitations that are disclosed by Das Sharma et al.: wherein the second data comprises a second identifier, and the second identifier indicates that the second data comprises link training data (Das Sharma et al., Paragraph 67, a binary code may be injected in one or more fields of the specialized training sequence (e.g., in an otherwise reserved field in a particular symbol sent in a training sequence within a particular link training state (e.g., a polling state)) to identify a specific one of multiple supported test modes…the training sequences may identify a LUT testing link state in which the lane under test is to enter). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takahashi with the cited disclosure from Das Sharma et al. in order to identify lanes and particular training sequences to be applied thereto between source and sink device (Das Sharma et al., Paragraph 67). Regarding claim 30, Takahashi discloses the claimed invention above as well as wherein before receiving the first data, the method further comprises: receiving the second data, wherein the second data is obtained based on a training pattern, and the training pattern is configured for performing the link training (Takahashi, Paragraph 19, The first link training processing unit 121 is configured to, by controlling the communication unit 13, perform link training in accordance with an eDP protocol (first link training), then establish [link up] transmission path, prepare the image data to be sent or received, image data converted to eDP standard after link up has been established, and send image data from source device 10 to sink device 20 over transmission line 30 via respective eDP interfaces of source and sink devices). Takahashi does not disclose the following limitations that are disclosed by Das Sharma et al.: wherein the second data comprises a second identifier, and the second identifier indicates that the second data comprises link training data (Das Sharma et al., Paragraph 67, a binary code may be injected in one or more fields of the specialized training sequence (e.g., in an otherwise reserved field in a particular symbol sent in a training sequence within a particular link training state (e.g., a polling state)) to identify a specific one of multiple supported test modes…the training sequences may identify a LUT testing link state in which the lane under test is to enter). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takahashi with the cited disclosure from Das Sharma et al. in order to identify lanes and particular training sequences to be applied thereto between source and sink device (Das Sharma et al., Paragraph 67). Regrading claim 31, Das Sharma et al. disclose determining an equalization parameter based on the second data; and wherein receiving the first data comprises: receiving the first data based on the equalization parameter (Das Sharma et al., Paragraphs 50, 78, link training performed with equalization). Claim(s) 21 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Das Sharma et al. as applied to claim19 and 30 above, and further in view of Bommana et al. (US 2022/0058142). Regarding claims 21 and 33, Takahashi in view of Das Sharma et al. discloses the claimed invention above but does not disclose the following limitations that are disclosed by Bommana et al.: wherein: the second data further comprises a fourth identifier, wherein the fourth identifier is configured for character delimitation during the link training; and the fourth identifier is arranged between the second identifier and the training pattern (Bommana et al., Paragraph 30, both partners proceed into link training, sending training sequence (TSEQ), TS1, and then TS2 ordered sets, which are unique start-of-packet delimiters). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takahashi and Kobayashi with the cited disclosure from Bommana et al. in order to determine link capabilities (Bommana et al., Paragraph 30). Claim(s) 22, 23 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Das Sharma et al. as applied to claims 19 and 30 above, and further in view of Zeng. Regarding claim 22, Takahashi in view of Das Sharma et al. discloses the claimed invention above but does not disclose the following limitations that are disclosed by Zeng: wherein: the second data further comprises a fourth identifier, wherein the fourth identifier is configured for inter-channel alignment processing during the link training; and the fourth identifier is arranged between the second identifier and the training pattern (Zeng, Abstract, Link training is then performed between the source device and the sink device utilizing the first set of preset parameter and the link status (bit lock, symbol lock and inter-lane alignment) of the DisplayPort device is then read). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takahashi and Das Sharma et al. with the cited disclosure from Zeng in order to perform link training using sets of parameters until the link training is successful (Zeng, Abstract). Regarding claim 23, Takahashi in view of Das Sharma et al. discloses the claimed invention above but does not disclose the following limitations that are disclosed by Zeng: wherein: the second data further comprises a fourth identifier, wherein the fourth identifier is configured for periodic link locking detection during the link training; and the fourth identifier is arranged between the second identifier and the training pattern (Zeng, Abstract, Link training is then performed between the source device and the sink device utilizing the first set of preset parameter and the link status (bit lock, symbol lock and inter-lane alignment) of the DisplayPort device is then read). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takahashi and Kobayashi with the cited disclosure from Zeng in order to perform link training using sets of parameters until the link training is successful (Zeng, Abstract). Regarding claim 34, Takahashi in view of Das Sharma et al. discloses the claimed invention above but does not disclose the following limitations that are disclosed by Zeng: wherein: the second data further comprises a fourth identifier, wherein the fourth identifier is configured for inter-channel alignment processing or periodic link locking detection during the link training; and the fourth identifier is arranged between the second identifier and the training pattern (Zeng, Abstract, Link training is then performed between the source device and the sink device utilizing the first set of preset parameter and the link status (bit lock, symbol lock and inter-lane alignment) of the DisplayPort device is then read). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takahashi and Kobayashi with the cited disclosure from Zeng in order to perform link training using sets of parameters until the link training is successful (Zeng, Abstract). Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Kobayashi as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Bommana et al. Regarding claim 27, Takahashi in view of Kobayashi discloses the claimed invention above but does not disclose the following limitations that are disclosed by Bommana et al.: wherein: the first data further comprises a third identifier, wherein the third identifier is configured for character delimitation during transmission of the service data; and the third identifier is arranged between the first identifier and the service data (Bommana et al., Paragraph 30, both partners proceed into link training, sending training sequence (TSEQ), TS1, and then TS2 ordered sets, which are unique start-of-packet delimiters). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takahashi and Kobayashi with the cited disclosure from Bommana et al. in order to determine link capabilities (Bommana et al., Paragraph 30). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 20, 24, 32 and 35 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 20 and 32, the prior art does not disclose or adequately suggest the same data structure for both service data and link training data as specifically recited in the claimed invention; regarding claims 24 and 35, the prior art does not disclose or adequately suggest first and second identifiers as special character scramble reset (SR) and special character training pattern scramble reset (TPSR). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OTIS L THOMPSON, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30am - 7:00pm. 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, Chirag G. Shah can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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. /OTIS L THOMPSON, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477 December 11, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 28, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 20, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598492
TERMINAL, RADIO COMMUNICATION METHOD, AND BASE STATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593318
TIME DOMAIN PATTERN SWITCHING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587877
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING A POOR NETWORK QUALITY AREA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12574321
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FACILITATING ROUTING OF LEVEL 1 NUMBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568010
FREQUENCY DOMAIN MULTIPLEXING OF A DATA SIGNAL AND A REFERENCE SIGNAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+9.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1002 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month