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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of a new ground of rejections.
However, on page 8, Applicant argues that,
“ […] Claims 1-20 were previously presented. Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 have been amended, claims 2-7, 10, and 15-20 have been canceled, and claims 21-26 have been added. Accordingly, claims 1, 8, 9, 11-14, and 21-26 are pending in the present application. Applicant submits that upon entry of the present Response, claims 1, 8, 9, 11-14, and 21-26 are in condition for allowance. Moreover, the Applicant submits that no new matter has been introduced by the foregoing amendments. For example, Figs. 1 and 4 and their descriptions in the specification support the amendments and claim additions.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that, upon thorough reviewing the specification of the current invention, Examiner finds no support for at least the limitations of “providing to a first buffer, implemented along the first path, a difference between the first delay data and the buffering delay; and providing to the first multimedia processing device a difference between the second delay data and the buffering delay.”
Instead, Examiner finds:
On page 15, lines 1-3, “determining a buffering delay representative of a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value among the delay data of the plurality of delay data”, thus at least providing support for the limitation of “determining a buffering delay representative of a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value among the first and second delay data.”
However, this buffering delay is provided to a buffer corresponding to a path with minimum value of delay (see page 15, lines 4-28), which clearly does not support the limitations of “providing to a first buffer, implemented along the first path, a difference between the first delay data and the buffering delay; and providing to the first multimedia processing device a difference between the second delay data and the buffering delay.”
The disclosure that follows on page 15, line 29 – page 17, line 14, describes implementing different delays along different paths; however, to ensure that the final delays on all paths are the same.
However, the limitations of “providing to a first buffer, implemented along the first path, a difference between the first delay data and the buffering delay; and providing to the first multimedia processing device a difference between the second delay data and the buffering delay” are not equivalent to making all paths to have a same delay.
For the sake of argument, under an assumption of Δ1 being the first delay data and Δ2 being the second delay data, the buffering delay would be | Δ1 – Δ2|. For simplicity, let’s assume that Δ1 > Δ2. The buffering delay would be Δ1 – Δ2.
As a result, a difference between the first delay data and the buffering delay would be | Δ1 –(Δ1 – Δ2)| = Δ2.
Providing this value to a buffer along the first path would make the total delay of the first path equal to Δ2 + Δ1.
Further, a difference between the second delay data and the buffering delay would be | Δ2 –(Δ1 – Δ2)| = |2Δ2 - Δ1|.
Providing this value to the first multimedia processing device would make at least the total delay of the second path to a rendering device with maximum delay equal to Δ2 + |2Δ2 - Δ1|.
As such, the specification does not support the limitations of “providing to a first buffer, implemented along the first path, a difference between the first delay data and the buffering delay; and providing to the first multimedia processing device a difference between the second delay data and the buffering delay”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11-14, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, ““providing to a first buffer, implemented along the first path, a difference between the first delay data and the buffering delay; and providing to the first multimedia processing device a difference between the second delay data and the buffering delay”, which do not have support from the specification (also see “Response to Arguments” above).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as discussed above.
Claims 8-9, 11-13, and 21-26 are dependent claims thus inheriting the rejected features.
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 HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights