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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, 10-12, 14-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first byte comprises the first N bytes" in line 4. It is unclear how “the first byte” could be “the first N bytes”. “N” is either equal to 1 or greater than 1. If N=1, we have “the first byte comprises the first byte”, which adds no limitation to the claim. If N>1, we have “the first byte comprises the first two or more bytes”, which is unclear because it is unclear how a byte could be two or more bytes.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first N bytes" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first N bytes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first byte comprises the first N bytes" in line 3. It is unclear how “the first byte” could be “the first N bytes”. “N” is either equal to 1 or greater than 1. If N=1, we have “the first byte comprises the first byte”, which adds no limitation to the claim. If N>1, we have “the first byte comprises the first two or more bytes”, which is unclear because it is unclear how a byte could be two or more bytes.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first N bytes" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first N bytes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Der Stok et al. (US Pub. 2008/0137728).
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 8, Van Der Stok teaches a data transmission method, performed by a data sender, and the method comprising: sending second type of data, in response to determination that first type of data in an Internet Protocol (IP) packet (“each frame in one or more packets like IP packets” in [0085]) is successfully sent (see “the dependent frame 108 is sent after the independent frame 107” in [0085] and “the dependent frame (108) is sent after the independent frame (107) being acknowledged” in claim 3); wherein importance of the first type of data is greater than importance of the second type of data (see “An I-frame may thus be considered an independent frame 107, a P-frame may be considered a dependent frame 108, and a B-frame may be considered a dependent frame 108 or a further dependent frame 116” in [0026] and “I frames 102 a higher priority than P and B frames 102 and P frames 102 a higher priority than B frames 102” in [0073]).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Van Der Stok 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; and sending, based on a next IP packet, the first type of data in the next IP packet (When dependent frame is waiting for the successful transmission of independent frame, if independent frame is unsuccessfully sent, the dependent frame is not sent. Instead, the unacknowledged independent frame is not removed from the buffer and retransmitted from the buffer, see “reordering (114) the transmitting (111) of the frames (102) from the buffer (110) such that the dependent frame (108) is sent after the independent frame (107) being acknowledged” in claim 3 and “removing (112) acknowledged frames (102) from the buffer (110); retransmitting (121) a frame transmitted from the buffer (110) until it is acknowledged” in claim 4).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Van Der Stok teaches classifying the first type of data and the second type of data based on a degree of importance of data (“I frames 102 a higher priority than P and B frames 102 and P frames 102 a higher priority than B frames 102” in [0073]).
Regarding claim 13, Van Der Stok teaches the data sender comprises a terminal or a network device (“The system 200 may comprise a medium between the transmitter 104 and the receiver 105, like air, a bus, an Internet, an in-home network, and may be wired or wireless, e.g. a bus inside a PC or data 103 processing device, an Ethernet LAN, a WiFi link, a BlueTooth connection, a Zigbee hop, an ad-hoc wireless network” in [0084]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 10-12, 14-16 and 19-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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