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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant Arguments/REMARKS filed on 07/07/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardt et al (US11381620B2) in view of Breuer et al (US20230319749A1).
Regarding claim 20 (and method claim 1) An application server, comprising:
a wireless transceiver (Fig 1, applications servers with processors, base station hardware for transmitting data signals); and
one or more processors (Fig 1, applications servers with processors, base station hardware for transmitting data signals) configured to:
transmit, via the wireless transceiver, one or more packets to the wireless communication node for providing to a user equipment (UE), the one or more packets including information usable by the wireless communication node for applying a delivery policy for delivering the one or more packets to the UE, according to the reference time (col 3 lines 56-67, col 4 lines 38-43, Fig col 6 lines 1-28, Abstract, teaches transmitting, from a server, time-stamped multimedia packets to a wireless router that stores and forwards the packets to wireless client devices (e.g. cell phone, set top box), corresponding to a wireless communication node providing packets to a UE; the packets include timing information such as timestamps and presentation timestamps (PTS), which are examined and compared with a system time clock (STC) value at the router; the router uses this information to apply a delivery policy through queue management prioritizing, reordering, immediately transmitting or discarding packets transmit logic—this is a policy; the delivery decisions are made according to the reference time (STC) teaching packet delivery based on timing information).
Hardt also fails to explicitly teach but Breuer teaches establish, with a wireless communication node, a reference time between one or more first clocks of the application server and one or more second clocks of the wireless communication node ([0019]-[0020], [0032], [0035], [0067], [0134], teaches establishing a reference time between an application server and wireless communication nodes; application server determines and maintains a common application time-base using timing synchronization data obtained from wireless stations and base stations; the application server evaluates desynchronization between base station time bases and determines timing corrections relative to a selected reference time base, thereby creating a shared timing framework; base stations are wireless communication nodes—the common application time-base represents a reference time establishes between timing domains associated with the AS and the wireless nodes).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hardt and Breuer to improve timing-based delivery of data in wireless networks. Hardt teaches transmitting time-stamped packets from a server to a wireless node and applying a delivery policy based on timing information (e.g. timestamps and system time clock) to control packet transmission to client devices, while Breuer teaches establishing a common reference time across wireless network entities using an application server. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Breuer’s reference time framework to Hardt’s time-based packet delivery system to enable coordinated, time-aware packet scheduling at the wireless node, thereby improving delivery efficiency and timing accuracy.
Regarding claim 2, Hardt teaches wherein the one or more packets comprise one or more first packets, the method further comprising:
transmitting, by the application server, one or more second packets to the wireless communication node, the one or more first packets transmitted via a first data pipe and the one or more second packets transmitted via a second data pipe (col 4 lines 33-35, 50-52, teaches multiple concurrent packet streams/session which correspond to different data paths (pipes) where packets from different sessions are handled in parallel within the router).
Regarding claim 13 (and method claim 3) Hardt teaches wherein the one or more packets comprise one or more first packets, the one or more first packets including a common identifier with one or more second packets, which link the one or more first packets to the one or more second packets (col 2 lines 57-60, col 5 lines 7-11; packets are grouped and processed per streaming session, where the session context (PTS/STC/session) links packets together functioning as a common identifier).
Regarding claim 14 (and method claim 4), Hardt teaches wherein the wireless communication node applies the delivery policy to each of the one or more first packets and the one or more second packets, according to the common identifier (col 3 lines 56-67, col 4 lines 38-43, Abstract, applies the same delivery policy (queueing, prioritization across packets within the same session/group).
Regarding claim 5, Hardt teaches further comprising setting, by the application server, a delivery status for the one or more first packets and the one or more second packets, wherein the wireless communication node applies the delivery policy according to the delivery status (col 6 lines 8-10 & 16-20, Fig 2 210, 212; PTS/STC relationship determines packet treatment (transmit vs discard) acting as a delivery status indicator).
Regarding claim 16 (and method claim 6), Hardt teaches wherein the delivery status indicates whether the wireless communication node is to discard each of the one or more first packets and the one or more second packets, responsive to determining that at least one of the one or more first packets or the one or more second packets cannot be provided to the UE within a time budget (window) (col 3 lines 56-67, col 4 lines 38-43, Abstract, direct disclosure of discard decision based on time window—packets are discarded if the packets cannot be transmitted within the transmission window).
Regarding claim 7, Hardt teaches wherein the delivery policy comprises a discard policy corresponding to a delivery time window in which the one or more packets are to be delivered to the UE (Abstract; col 3 lines 56-67, col 4 lines 38-43; delivery policy ties to time window).
Regarding claim 17 (and method claim 8), Hardt teaches wherein the information includes a first timestamp indicating a first time, the first timestamp generated according to the one or more first clocks (Abstract; col 3 lines 56-67, col 4 lines 38-43; packets include timestamps (PTS) generated by the server).
Regarding claim 18 (and method claim 9), Hardt teaches wherein the wireless communication node determines a time budget in which to deliver the one or more packets to the UE, the time budget determined according to 1) the first timestamp, 2) an arrival time of the one or more packets from the application server determined based on the one or more second clocks, 3) the reference time, and 4) a delivery time window corresponding to the delivery policy (col 6 lines 1-20, Abstract, calculates whether packets can meet timing constraints using timestamps (PTS), reference clock (STC), transmission delays—corresponds to time budget determination).
Regarding claim 10, Hardt teaches wherein the information includes a delivery time window which corresponds to the delivery policy (Abstract; col 3 lines 56-67, col 4 lines 38-43, packet handling is governed by a time window derived from packet timing information).
Regarding claim 19 (and method claim 11), Hardt teaches wherein the wireless communication node applies the delivery policy, to at least one of schedule delivery of the one or more packets, or discard the one or more packets ((Abstract; col 3 lines 56-67, col 4 lines 38-43, packet handling is governed by a time window derived from packet timing information).
Regarding claim 12, Hardt teaches a wireless communication node, comprising:
a wireless transceiver (Fig 1, applications servers with processors, base station hardware for transmitting data signals); and
one or more processors (Fig 1, applications servers with processors, base station hardware for transmitting data signals) configured to:
receive, via the wireless transceiver from the application server, one or more packets for providing to a user equipment (UE), the one or more packets including information usable by the wireless communication node for applying a delivery policy (col 3 lines 56-67, col 4 lines38-43, Abstract, teaches transmitting, from a server, time-stamped multimedia packets to a wireless router that stores and forwards the packets to wireless client devices (e.g. cell phone, set top box), corresponding to a wireless communication node providing packets to a UE; the packets include timing information such as timestamps and presentation timestamps (PTS), which are examined and compared with a system time clock (STC) value at the router; the router uses this information to apply a delivery policy, including prioritizing, queueing, reordering, immediately transmitting or discarding packets; the delivery decisions are made according to the reference time (STC) teaching packet delivery based on timing information); and
apply the delivery policy to the one or more packets, for selectively delivering, via the wireless transceiver, the one or more packets to the UE, according to the reference time (col 3 lines 56-67, col 4 lines 38-43, col 6 lines 8-10 & 16-20, Fig 2 210, 212, Abstract, discloses that the wireless communication node determines packet handling decisions based on timing information (PTS and STC), which effectively constitutes determining a delivery status for packets; these determinations corresponds to assigning a delivery status (e.g. transmit immediately, queue, or discard; further applying delivery policy according to that status).
However, Hardt fails to explicitly teach but Breuer teaches determine a reference time established by an application server, the reference time between one or more first clocks of the application server and one or more second clocks of the wireless communication node ([0019]-[0020], [0032], [0035], [0067], [0134], discloses that an application server determines and maintains a common application time-base based on timing synchronization data; which corresponds to determining a reference time between timing domains associated with network entities, including wireless communication nodes).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hardt and Breuer to improve timing-based delivery of data in wireless networks. Hardt teaches transmitting time-stamped packets from a server to a wireless node and applying a delivery policy based on timing information (e.g. timestamps and system time clock) to control packet transmission to client devices, while Breuer teaches establishing a common reference time across wireless network entities using an application server. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Breuer’s reference time framework to Hardt’s time-based packet delivery system to enable coordinated, time-aware packet scheduling at the wireless node, thereby improving delivery efficiency and timing accuracy.
Regarding claim 15, Hardt teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine, according to the information of the one or more first packets and the one or more second packets, a delivery status for the one or more first packets and the one or more second packets, wherein the one or more processors apply the delivery policy according to the delivery status (col 3 lines 56-67, col 4 lines 38-43, col 6 lines 8-10 & 16-20, Fig 2 210, 212, Abstract, discloses that the wireless communication node determines packet handling decisions based on timing information (PTS and STC), which effectively constitutes determining a delivery status for packets; these determinations corresponds to assigning a delivery status (e.g. transmit immediately, queue, or discard; further applying delivery policy according to that status).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant addresses Hardt and Breuer in isolation, whereas the rejection relies on the combined teachings of the references. (Applicant’s arguments pg. 2-3). As explained in MPEP 2145, nonobviousness cannot be established by attached references individually where the rejection is based upon a combination of references. Here, Hardt is relied upon for transmitting time-sensitive packets from a server through a wireless communication node and applying a delivery policy based upon timing information, while Breuer is relied upon for the claimed establishment of a reference time between the application-server side and wireless-network-node side. Thus, it is not necessary that either Hardt or Breuer, standing alone, disclose every feature of claim 1.
Contrary to Applicant’s characterization, Breuer’s common application time base is not merely an arbitrary time value maintained by the application server independently of the wireless nodes. Breur [0019] teaches that the application server receives timing reports containing timing synchronization information from detected base stations and uses that information to determine the common application time base, while [0020] explains that the common application time base may comprise timing corrections for the base stations. Breuer further teaches determining the desynchronization between the different base-station time bases and a timing correction with respect to a selected time base [0032]-[0034], and expressly states in [0035] that the selected base station’s time base is taken as the reference time base and that the timing corrections of the other base stations are determined with respect to that reference. This teaching is reinforced by [0067], which configures the application-server synchronization unit to determine the common application time base from the different sets of timing synchronization data, and particularly by [0134], where Breuer states that the application server evaluates the timing reports, calculates the desynchronization between base stations, and thereby derives a common application time base for the wireless sensor stations. Accordingly, absent a narrower definition required by the claim, the Examiner interprets Breuer’s server-maintained application time base and its determined relationship to the wireless-node time bases as teaching the claimed reference time between the application-server clock/time base and the wireless communication node clock-time base. Northing in claim 1 requires that the wireless communication node itself calculates, maintain, or even independently identify the reference time.
Hardt supplies the complementary packet-delivery teachings and, importantly, confirms that its STC is not simply an unrelated clock originating at the client. Hardt expressly teaches that the remote MPEG encoder/server 105 provides a PCR PID stream that “synchs a STC between the server 105 and the video clients” and further controls the STC of the clients. Although Hardt subsequently states that the Wi-Fi router “obtains an updated STC clock value from the client,” the router then resets its own -on-board timer using that value. Thus, Applicant’s observation that the router receives the current STC value through the client does not establish that the STC is independent of the server; Hardt expressly traces that timing relationship back to the server-controlled PCR/STC arrangement. In the proposed combination, Breuer’s technique for establishing a server-side common/reference time from wireless-node timing information is applied to Hardt’s timing-based communication architecture, thereby providing the claimed reference between the application server and wireless communication node.
Hardt also expressly teaches the claimed use of packet information by the wireless communication node to apply a delivery policy according to that timing reference. Hardt explains that presentation/decode timestamps are contained within the video packets, and its router compares the packet PTS against the current STC to determine the packets proper position in the queue. In the disclosed processing, the STC is retrieved the difference between PTS and STC is calculated, and that timing comparison determines whether a packet is normally queued, transmitted immediately by circumventing the WMM queue, or discarded when the applicable PTS/STC window cannot be satisfied. Thus, the packet-carried timestamp constitutes information usable by the wireless node for applying a delivery policy relative to a reference time. Applicant’s assertion that Breuer’s base stations themselves do not apply a delivery policy therefore does not identify a deficiency in the rejection because Hardt, not Breuer, is relied upon for that portion of the combination.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have has reason to apply Breuer’s common/reference-time technique to Hardt’s timing-sensitive packet delivery system because the reference address complementary aspects of the same timing problem: Breuer provides the mechanism for determining a consistent application-side time reference relative to otherwise unsynchronized wireless-network time bases, while Hardt relies upon an accurate timing reference to determine whether time-sensitive packets should be queued, reprioritized immediately transmitted, or discarded. Breuer itself explains that the application server serves the common application time base so that timing information associated with different wireless stations can be accurately corrected and evaluated, while Hardt expressly identifies timely delivery as essential and repeatedly bases its packet treatment on PTS/STC timing. Accordingly, the combining teaches and suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1, and Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection. Claims 12 and 20, and the respective dependent claims, are not persuasive for the same reasons to the extent the Applicant relied upon substantially the same alleged deficiency.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL WILLIAM ABBATINE whose telephone number is (571)272-0192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0830-1700 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/MICHAEL WILLIAM ABBATINE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights