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 Amendment
The amendment filed 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 24-26 are new.
Claims 5, 9 and 23 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 6-7, 13-14 are amended.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-22 and 24-26 are pending.
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 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.
(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.
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, 6-8, 11, 13-14, 18, 22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Farrar (US 11,095,999 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Farrar teaches receiving data for transmission within an audio environment[ Abstract, Claim 1 has data being transmitted by audio];
dividing the data into a plurality of data segments[Fig 2 and Col 6, Lines 25-45 has data in segments];
appending a ….. headers to the plurality of data segments to form a first audio transmission[Fig 2 and Col 6, Lines 25-45 has data in segments with headers];
wherein the ….. includes a main header before a first data segment of the plurality of data segments and a ….. before at least one of the plurality of data segments, and wherein the main header indicates a quantity of the plurality of data segments[Fig 2 has preamble #202 for main header and payload #204, and header #206 and packet #208. See also Col 5 Lines 35 to col 6 Lines 45 for detailed description of data transmission];
and transmitting the first audio transmission as a first audio signal within the audio environment. [Abstract, Claim 1 has transmission as audio]
Farrar does not explicitly teach a plurality of headers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have more than one header, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 13, Farrar teaches a processor[#806 in Fig 8 has processor];
and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: [#804 in Fig 8 has memory]
receive data for transmission within an audio environment[Abstract, Claim 1 has data being transmitted by audio];
divide the data into a plurality of data segments[Fig 2 and Col 6, Lines 25-45 has data in segments];
append a ….. headers to the plurality of data segments to form a first audio transmission[Fig 2 and Col 6, Lines 25-45 has data in segments with headers];
wherein the ….. includes a main header before a first data segment of the plurality of data segments and a ….. before at least one of the plurality of data segments, and wherein the main header indicates a quantity of the plurality of data segments[Fig 2 has preamble #202 for main header and payload #204, and header #206 and packet #208. See also Col 5 Lines 35 to col 6 Lines 45 for detailed description of data transmission];
and transmit the first audio transmission as a first audio signal within the audio environment. [Abstract, Claim 1 has transmission as audio]
Farrar does not explicitly teach a plurality of headers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have more than one header, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 14, Farrar teaches detecting a first audio transmission within a received audio signal[ Abstract, Claim 1 has data being transmitted by audio];
determining, based on a main header of the first audio transmission, that the audio transmission contains a plurality of data segments[Fig 2 and Col 6, Lines 25-45 has data in segments] wherein the main header indicates a quantity of the plurality of data segments and is before a first data segment of the plurality of data segments;[Fig 2 has preamble #202 for main header and payload #204, and header #206 and packet #208. See also Col 5 Lines 35 to col 6 Lines 45 for detailed description of data transmission];
identifying, within the first audio transmission, a ….. segment headers[Fig 2 and Col 6, Lines 25-45 has data in segments] wherein the ….. are before at least one of the plurality of data segments [Fig 2 has preamble #202 for main header and payload #204, and header #206 and packet #208. See also Col 5 Lines 35 to col 6 Lines 45 for detailed description of data transmission];
extracting, from the received audio signal, a plurality of payload segments based on the segment headers[Fig 2 and Col 6, Lines 25-45 has data in segments with headers];
and extracting, based on the segment headers, the plurality of data segments from the plurality of payload segments. [Fig 2 and Col 6, Lines 25-45 has data in segments with headers which have information on the data]
Farrar does not explicitly teach a plurality of headers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have more than one header, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Farrar teaches wherein the main header further indicates a segment length for the plurality of data segments and/or a quantity of the plurality of data segments. [Col 5 Lines 60 to Col 6 Lines 50 have preamble and payload containing data for processing and identification]
Regarding claim 7, Farrar teaches wherein each segment header of the plurality of segment headers corresponds to a data segment of the plurality of data segments. [Fig 2 has preamble #202 and payload #204 for header #206 for all the data]
Regarding claim 8, Farrar teaches wherein each segment header of the plurality of segment headers is generated to contain an identifier of a subsequent data segment. [Col 12; Lines 15-25 has unique identifier based on the transmission]
Regarding claim 11, Farrar teaches wherein transmitting the first audio transmission as a first audio signal comprises: modulating contents of the first audio transmission into a plurality of audio symbols [Col 5 Lines 45 to Col 6 Lines 50 have symbols in the transmission]; and generating an audio signal containing the plurality of audio symbols. [Col 5 Lines 45 to Col 6 Lines 50 have symbols in the transmission]
Regarding claim 22, Farrar teaches wherein the plurality of payload segments are extracted as portions of the audio signal between consecutive segment headers. [Abstract and claim 1 have acknowledgement meaning data is extracted]
Regarding claim 24, Farrar teaches wherein the main header comprises a segmented payload indicator indicating a presence of a segmented payload for the first audio transmission.[Fig 2 has preamble #202 for main header and payload #204, and header #206 and packet #208. See also Col 5 Lines 35 to col 6 Lines 45 for detailed description of data transmission with regards to the symbols meaning the preamble has symbols giving information].
Regarding claim 25 Farrar teaches wherein the identifier of each segment header of the plurality of segment headers comprises a sequence count of the corresponding data segment of the plurality of data segments.[ Fig 2 has preamble #202 for main header and payload #204, and header #206 and packet #208. See also Col 5 Lines 35 to col 6 Lines 45 for detailed description of data transmission with regards headers and symbols containing information]
Claims 2-4, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrar (US 11,095,999 B1) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Batra (US 10,784,993 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Farrar teaches further comprising, after transmitting the first audio transmission: receiving, within the audio environment, a second audio transmission containing an acknowledgment of the first audio transmission[Abstract and claim 1 have acknowledgement];
Farrar does not explicitly teach and determining, based on the second audio transmission, that a subset of the plurality of data segments were not received.
Batra teaches that and determining, based on the second audio transmission, that a subset of the plurality of data segments were not received. [#1608 in Fig 16 and Col 62 Lines 15-30 has acknowledgment regarding packets not received]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the data transmission in Farrar with the acknowledgement of successful or unsuccessful packet transmission of Batra in order to identify and transmit packets not received.
Regarding claim 3, Farrar does not explicitly teach wherein the acknowledgment contains identifiers of received data segments, and wherein the subset of the plurality of data segments that were not received are identified based on the identifiers.
Batra teaches that wherein the acknowledgment contains identifiers of received data segments, and wherein the subset of the plurality of data segments that were not received are identified based on the identifiers. [#1608 in Fig 16 and Col 62 Lines 15-30 has acknowledgment regarding packets not received]
Regarding claim 4, Farrar does not explicitly teach further comprising: generating a third audio transmission containing the subset of the plurality of data segments; and transmitting the third audio transmission as a second audio signal within the audio environment.
Batra teaches that further comprising: generating a third audio transmission containing the subset of the plurality of data segments[#1608 in Fig 16 and Col 62 Lines 15-30 has acknowledgment regarding packets not received]; and transmitting the third audio transmission as a second audio signal within the audio environment. [#1608 in Fig 16 and Col 62 Lines 15-30 has acknowledgment regarding packets not received].
Regarding claim 15, Farrar teaches wherein extracting the plurality of data segments comprises[Abstract and claim 1 have acknowledgement]:
Farrar does not explicitly teach determining that at least one of the plurality of data segments was not properly received; and transmitting a second audio transmission requesting retransmission of the at least one of the plurality of data segments that was not properly received.
Batra teaches that determining that at least one of the plurality of data segments was not properly received[#1608 in Fig 16 and Col 62 Lines 15-30 has acknowledgment regarding packets not received]; and transmitting a second audio transmission requesting retransmission of the at least one of the plurality of data segments that was not properly received.[#1608 in Fig 16 and Col 62 Lines 15-30 has acknowledgment regarding packets not received]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the data transmission in Farrar with the acknowledgement of successful or unsuccessful packet transmission of Batra in order to identify and transmit packets not received.
Regarding claim 16, Farrar does not explicitly teach wherein the second audio transmission contains an acknowledgment, and wherein the method further comprises generating the acknowledgment to include identifiers of data segments of the plurality of data segments that were properly received.
Batra teaches that wherein the second audio transmission contains an acknowledgment, and wherein the method further comprises generating the acknowledgment to include identifiers of data segments of the plurality of data segments that were properly received. [#1608 in Fig 16 and Col 62 Lines 15-30 has acknowledgment regarding packets not received].
Regarding claim 17, Farrar does not explicitly teach further comprising receiving a third audio transmission that contains the at least one of the plurality of data segments that was not properly received. [#1608 in Fig 16 and Col 62 Lines 15-30 has acknowledgment regarding packets not received and request for retransmission of missing packet]
Batra teaches that further comprising receiving a third audio transmission that contains the at least one of the plurality of data segments that was not properly received. [#1608 in Fig 16 and Col 62 Lines 15-30 has acknowledgment regarding packets not received and request for retransmission of missing packet]
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrar (US 11,095,999 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Connor (US 10,630,315 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Farrar does not explicitly teach wherein a size of the data for transmission is greater than or equal to 256 bytes
Connor teaches that wherein a size of the data for transmission is greater than or equal to 256 bytes. [Col 9; Lines 10-20 have maximum byte transmission greater than 256 bytes]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the data transmission in Farrar with the byte size of Connor in order to transmit more data. Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to transmit over 256 bytes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 10 and 19-21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrar (US 11,095,999 B1) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Kwak (US 10,904,641 B2).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Farrar does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of headers includes a training sequence.
Kwak teaches that wherein each of the plurality of headers includes a training sequence. [Figs 27 and 28 and Col 37 Lines 20-65 have training data in transmission]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the data transmission in Farrar with the training data of Kwak in order to use training data as part of synchronization.
Regarding claim 20, Farrar does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of segment headers are identified based on the training sequence
Kwak teaches that wherein the plurality of segment headers are identified based on the training sequence. [Figs 27 and 28 and Col 37 Lines 20-65 have training data in transmission]
Regarding claim 21, Farrar, as modified, wherein extracting the data from the plurality of payload segments comprises equalizing the plurality of payload segments based on a preceding segment header. [Fig 2 has certain length of transmission. Abstract and claim 1 have predetermined period meaning fixed times for transmission and listening meaning the transmission has a known time]
Regarding claim 26, Farrar teaches wherein the main header and the segment headers are associated with a payload of the first audio transmission, and wherein the first audio transmission comprises a ….. separate from the payload. [Fig 2 has preamble #202 for training sequence and payload #204, and header #206 and packet #208. See also Col 5 Lines 35 to col 6 Lines 45 for detailed description of data transmission with regards to the symbols meaning the preamble has symbols giving information meaning it is associated with the audio]
Farrar does not explicitly teach a training sequence.
Kwak teaches a training sequence. [Figs 27 and 28 and Col 37 Lines 20-65 have training data in transmission]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the data transmission in Farrar with the training data of Kwak in order to use training data as part of synchronization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is reading he prior art overly narrowly. As it is pointed out in Fig 2 the Preamble is clearly equivalent to the main header and the applicant admits on page 7 if the remarks that it identifies the transmission and the symbols contain information being transmitted. This means that there is clearly a main header before a first data segment of the plurality of data segments and a plurality of segment headers before at least one of the plurality of data segments, and wherein the main indicates a quantity of the plurality of data segments. Said another way applicant is claiming data transmission with headers and asserting it is different without explaining how and distinguishing the prior art from the claimed invention which is also data transmission with headers.
Further more as previously rejected it is also pointed out for claims 6-8 that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have more than one header, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Rejections are maintained – and no allowable subject matter can be identified at this time.
Conclusion
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 VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645