DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 02/28/2024, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Quigley et al.(hereinafter, “Quigley”; 20130038792).
In response to claim 17,
Quigly teaches a machine-side device, comprising: at least one processor; and one or more memories including computer instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the machine-side device to (paragraph 23, source computing system is equated to machine-side device, paragraph 67, a programable processor is equated to a processor, paragraph 71 teaches using a memory):
obtain a first signal comprising tactile data and at least one piece of first data (paragraph 23, source computing system is equated to machine-side device, receiving sensor data form sensing devices is read as obtaining a first signal comprising tactile data and at least one piece of first data, sensor data is equated a tactile data flow and a data flow and at least one piece of first data);
generate a tactile data flow and at least one first data flow based on the first signal (paragraph 23, signals are interpreted as using a first signal, generating signals by a source computing system is read as receiving by a network device, sensor data is equated a tactile data flow and a data flow sent by the machine-side device),
wherein the tactile data flow and the at least one first data flow comprise a synchronization identifier(paragraph 24, using a time alignment is interpreted as using a synchronization procedure, paragraph 26, using identifier of sensation input devices as identifier is interpreted as using a time alignment with identifier or using a synchronization identifier); and
send the tactile data flow and the at least one first data flow to a network device (fig. 1, element 130 and 140, paragraphs 21 and 27, public network 140 and server 130 together are equated to a network device, paragraph 23, generating signal by a source computing system is read as sending the tactile data flow and the at least one first data flow to a network device).
In response to claim 18,
Quigly teaches wherein to generate the tactile data flow and the at least one first data flow based on the first signal, the machine-side device is caused to (paragraph 23,generating signal by a source computing system is read as generating, sensor data is equated a tactile data flow caused by the machine side device and at least one first data flow, signals are interpreted as using a first signal, generating signals based on command or haptic data (e.g. sensor data) explicitly teaches generate the tactile data flow and the at least one first data flow based on the first signal):
generate the tactile data flow based on the tactile data(paragraph 23,generating signals based on command or haptic data (e.g. sensor data) explicitly teaches this limitation); and
generate the at least one first data flow based on the at least one piece of first data (paragraph 23, sensor data received form sensation input is equated to one piece of first data, generating signals based on command or haptic data (e.g. sensor data) explicitly teaches this limitation).
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Quigley et al.(hereinafter, “Quigley”; 20130038792) in view of Wu et al. (hereinafter, “Wu”, CN101184222). (For citation purpose, examiner has used English translation of CN101184222. The original copy and the English translation describe the same innovation. The publication date of CN 101184222 is May/21/2008; therefore, it qualifies as a prior art under 35 U.S.C 103 (a)).
In response to claim 1,
Quigly teaches a data transmission method, comprising: receiving, by a network device, a tactile data flow and at least one first data flow sent by a machine-side device (fig. 1, element 130 and 140, paragraphs 21 and 27, public network 140 and server 130 together are equated to a network device, paragraph 23, source computing system is equated to machine-side device, generating signal by a source computing system is read as receiving by a network device, sensor data is equated a tactile data flow and a data flow sent by the machine-side device),
wherein the tactile data flow and the at least one first data flow comprise a synchronization identifier (paragraph 24, using a time alignment is interpreted as using a synchronization procedure, paragraph 26, using identifier of sensation input devices as identifier is interpreted as using a time alignment with identifier or using a synchronization identifier); and
Quigly does not teach explicitly about synchronizing, by the network device, transmission time of the tactile data flow and transmission time of the at least one first data flow.
Wu in view of Quigly teaches synchronizing, by the network device, transmission time of the tactile data flow and transmission time of the at least one first data flow (page 3, step 101,base station is equated to a network device, streaming is equated to tactile data flow and first data flow, step 104, synchronizing frame with at a same time or with a small time delay by the base station explicitly teaches this limitation).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Quigly for synchronizing, by the network device, transmission time of the tactile data flow and transmission time of the at least one first data flow as taught by WU because it would allow improving quality of services for video streaming by taking multiple QoS parameters into account.
In response to claim 9,
Quigly teaches a network device comprising: at least one processor; and one or more memories including computer instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the network device to (fig. 1, element 130 and 140, paragraphs 21 and 27, public network 140 and server 130 together are equated to a network device, paragraph 67, a programable processor is equated to a processor, paragraph 71 teaches using a memory):
receive a tactile data flow and at least one first data flow sent by a machine-side device (paragraph 23, source computing system is equated to machine-side device, generating signal by a source computing system is read as receiving by a network device, sensor data is equated a tactile data flow and a data flow sent by the machine-side device is read as receiving a tactile data flow and at least one first data flow sent by a machine-side device),
wherein the tactile data flow and the at least one first data flow comprise a synchronization identifier (paragraph 24, using a time alignment is interpreted as using a synchronization procedure, paragraph 26, using identifier of sensation input devices as identifier is interpreted as using a time alignment with identifier or using a synchronization identifier); and
Quigly does not teach explicitly about synchronizing, by the network device, transmission time of the tactile data flow and transmission time of the at least one first data flow.
Wu in view of Quigly teaches synchronize transmission time of the tactile data flow and transmission time of the at least one first data flow (page 3, step 101,base station is equated to a network device, streaming is equated to tactile data flow and first data flow, step 104, synchronizing frame with at a same time or with a small time delay by the base station explicitly teaches this limitation).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Quigly for synchronizing, by the network device, transmission time of the tactile data flow and transmission time of the at least one first data flow as taught by WU because it would allow improving quality of services for video streaming by taking multiple QoS parameters into account.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 19-20 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.
As for dependent claims 2 and 10, these claims are objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the synchronizing the transmission time of the tactile data flow and the transmission time of the at least one first data flow comprises: determining, by the network device, a transmission time interval of the tactile data flow and a transmission time interval of the at least one first data flow; and synchronizing, by the network device, the transmission time interval of the at least one first data flow and the transmission time interval of the tactile data flow.”
The closet prior art in the record Quigley et al.(20130038792) teaches in paragraph 23-24 about using different sensation data flows for communication, he also discusses in paragraph 26 about using input device identifier as identification for the data flows, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Dependent claims 3 and 11 depend on claims 2 and 10.
As for dependent claims 4 and 12, these claims are objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein before the receiving, by the network device, the tactile data flow and the at least one first data flow sent by the machine-side device, the method further comprises: receiving, by the network device, data flow parameter information sent by the machine-side device, wherein the data flow parameter information is parameter information of data flows transmitted between the network device and the machine-side device and between the network device and a user-side device, and the data flow parameter information comprises a quality of service coefficient, a synchronization time reference, and a sensor frequency.”
The closet prior art in the record Quigley et al.(20130038792) teaches in paragraph 23-24 about using different sensation data flows for communication, he also discusses in paragraph 26 about using input device identifier as identification for the data flows, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Dependent claims 5 and 13 depend on claims 4 and 12.
Dependent claims 6 and 14 depend on claims 5 and 13.
Dependent claims 7 and 15 depend on claims 6 and 14.
As for dependent claims 8 and 16, these claims are objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the synchronization identifier comprises a frame number of a tactile frame corresponding to tactile data and a common air interface transmission time interval number.”
The closet prior art in the record Quigley et al.(20130038792) teaches in paragraph 23-24 about using different sensation data flows for communication, he also discusses in paragraph 26 about using input device identifier as identification for the data flows, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for dependent claim 19, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the machine-side device is further caused to: before obtaining the first signal, send data flow parameter information to the network device, wherein the data flow parameter information is parameter information of data flows transmitted between the network device and the machine-side device and between the network device and a user-side device, and the data flow parameter information comprises a quality of service coefficient, a synchronization time reference, and a sensor frequency.”
The closet prior art in the record Quigley et al.(20130038792) teaches in paragraph 23-24 about using different sensation data flows for communication, he also discusses in paragraph 26 about using input device identifier as identification for the data flows, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for dependent claim 20, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the synchronization identifier comprises a frame number of a tactile frame to tactile data and a common air interface transmission time interval number.”
The closet prior art in the record Quigley et al.(20130038792) teaches in paragraph 23-24 about using different sensation data flows for communication, he also discusses in paragraph 26 about using input device identifier as identification for the data flows, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20100044121………………………paragraphs 81-88.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2466 /CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466