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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentric (US Pub. 2007/0011556) in view of Kanade et al. (US Pub. 2012/0327943).
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 8, Gentric teaches a data transmission method, performed by a data sender, and the method comprising: importance of the first type of data is greater than importance of the second type of data (see more important data placed in the sensitive part of the packet, including decoder context information on the first partition of a scalable bitstream [0079], [0080]); determining a first-type part configured for transmitting the first type of data, wherein the first-type part comprises first N bytes in the IP packet, where N is a positive integer (“the most important media data at the beginning of a scalable media bitstream” in [0080]). Gentric, however, does not teach the first-type part being first-type byte and sending second type of data, in response to determination that first type of data in an Internet Protocol (IP) packet is successfully sent; wherein the determination that the first type of data in the IP packet is successfully sent comprises: determining, in response to successfully sending of the first-type byte, that the first type of data is successfully sent. Kanade teaches the first-type part being first-type byte (see a block may be decomposed at a lower level, e.g., as a sequence of bytes [0023]) and sending second type of data, in response to determination that first type of data in an Internet Protocol (IP) packet is successfully sent (see the sender tracks packets sent and received, using acknowledgements, and decides what data can be sent next based on that status [0015], [0016]); wherein the determination that the first type of data in the IP packet is successfully sent comprises: determining, in response to successfully sending of the first-type byte, that the first type of data is successfully sent (see marking packets as RECEIVED when acknowledgements arrive and using that status to control further transmission [0015],[0016]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gentric to have the first-type part being first-type byte and sending second type of data, in response to determination that first type of data in an Internet Protocol (IP) packet is successfully sent; wherein the determination that the first type of data in the IP packet is successfully sent comprises: determining, in response to successfully sending of the first-type byte, that the first type of data is successfully sent. as taught by Kanade in order to prioritize candidate data under bandwidth constrain [0053].
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Gentric teaches the first-type byte is determined based on a protocol provision or a rule (“which are more important than the others, like an image size or a frame rate for a video decoder or any decoder context information” in [0080]).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Gentric teaches the second type of data is sent in a second-type byte (“the insensitive part of the media packet the subsequent data partitions DP2, DP3 . . . DPN” in [0080]), and the second-type byte (see “BMD” in Figure 7) comprises a byte other than the first-type byte (see “BMD2” in Figure 7) in the IP packet.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Kanade teaches stopping, in response to determination that the first type of data in the IP packet is unsuccessfully sent, sending of the second type of data in the IP packet (“packet lost?” in step 350 in Figure 3); and sending, based on a next IP packet, the first type of data in the next IP packet (“Update set of candidate blocks” in step 352 in Figure 3).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Gentric teaches classifying the first type of data and the second type of data based on a degree of importance of data (“which are more important than the others, like an image size or a frame rate for a video decoder or any decoder context information” in [0080]).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Gentric teaches the first-type byte is determined based on the first type of data to be sent (“which are more important than the others, like an image size or a frame rate for a video decoder or any decoder context information” and “send the most important media data at the beginning of a scalable media bitstream” in [0080]).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Gentric teaches the first type of data is sent in the first N bytes in the IP packet (“which are more important than the others, like an image size or a frame rate for a video decoder or any decoder context information” and “send the most important media data at the beginning of a scalable media bitstream” in [0080]) and Kanade teaches the determination that the first type of data in the IP packet is unsuccessfully sent comprises: determining that the first N bytes in the IP packet comprises any byte unsuccessfully sent (“packet lost?” in step 350 in Figure 3).
Regarding claims 12 and 21, Gentric teaches sending the first type of data based on an order of the first N bytes in the IP packet (“which are more important than the others, like an image size or a frame rate for a video decoder or any decoder context information” and “send the most important media data at the beginning of a scalable media bitstream” in [0080]).
Regarding claim 13, Gentric teaches the data sender comprises a terminal or a network device (“transmitter 1, also called a source host” in [0028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 7-13 and 15-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLEMENCE S HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/CLEMENCE S HAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights