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 Amendment
The amendments filed on July 15, 2026, have been entered. Claims 1-15, 17, and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on July 15, 2026, in response to the Non-Final Office Action dated April 23, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicants amended the title. Therefore, the previous objection to the specification is withdrawn.
The amendments overcome the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, the invocation of the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn.
Applicant argues, in page 10 of the remarks, “Batra does not disclose "receiving packets from the first device". In the rejection of Claim 1, the Office cites Batra 67, which states that "a processor at a wireless transmitting device ... may receive, over a video input channel, an ordered sequence of incoming video frames generated by a video encoder." Batra 67 therefore identifies the received items as "incoming video frames," not packets.”. Applicant further argues “Batra 68 does not cure this deficiency. Batra 68 states that the processor may arrange incoming video frames "in an ordered sequence of outgoing video frames in a transmission queue ... to be transmitted as data packets." Thus, Batra 68 describes video frames that are later scheduled to be transmitted as data packets. It does not disclose receiving packets from a first device. Rather, the cited portions describe receiving video frames and arranging those video frames in a transmission queue to be transmitted as data packets; they do not disclose receiving packets from the first device.”.
In response, Barta’s video frames equate to the claim packets. Therefore, Barta’s receiving video frames equate to receiving packets. Paragraph 0067 discloses receiving frames from a video encoder 116 (first device). Paragraph 0046 discloses the video encoder 116 is external video camera.
Applicant argues, in page 11 of the remarks, “Applicant respectfully asserts that the cited portions of Batra do not show identifying a chunk "to which the packets belong." The Office's mapping skips from Batra's video-frame/GOP relationship to the claimed packet/chunk relationship. The claim therefore requires identifying the chunk to which the packets belong and controlling storage and discard of packets based on the chunk to which the packets belong. Batra's cited GOP disclosure does not identify, for packets received from a first device, a chunk to which those packets belong. Accordingly, even if Batra's GOP is treated as some type of higher-level video structure, the cited disclosure still does not disclose the claimed act of identifying a chunk "to which the packets belong."”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0028 discloses frames in a GOPs are arranged in sequence while each GOP started with a I-frame for identification of the other frames that
belongs to the same GOP. Fig. 2 show GOP 201 (Chunk) to which I-frame, B-frame, P-frame (packets) belongs as explained in paragraph 0030.
Applicant argues, in page 12 of the remarks, “Accordingly, Batra does not disclose "controlling storing the packets into a buffer and discarding the packets from the buffer based on the chunk to which the packets belong."”.
In response, paragraph 0050 discloses discarding frames of GOP.
Applicant argues, in page 12 of the remarks, “Accordingly, Batra's cited disclosure does not disclose "discarding, based on whether a first packet that is received can be stored into the buffer and based on a first chunk to which the first packet belongs," as recited in amended Claim 1.”. Applicant argues, “Accordingly, Batra does not disclose "a second packet which is a stored packet in the buffer and all the other packets belonging to the same chunk as the second packet and stored in the buffer."”. Applicant argues, “Accordingly, Batra does not disclose "where the chunk to which the second packet and all the other packets belong is either the first chunk or a second chunk."”.
In response, paragraph 0050 discloses discarding, based on whether an received I-frame expected to be dropped and based on the GOP to which the I-frame frame belongs, all frames belonging to the same GOP that are stored in the buffer as stated, “In an embodiment, the processor 113 may be configured to, whenever a reference frame (e.g., an I or IDR frame) is expected to be dropped, drop all other frames belonging to the same GOP of the reference frame (in addition to, or instead of, dropping the reference frame).”
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
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 1-3, 6-9, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barta et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20200221147 A1), Barta.
Regarding claim 1:
Barta teaches:
A communication device that transmits packets received from a first device to a
second device using one of a plurality of communication lines, the communication
device comprising: a processor and a memory storing a program, wherein the processor executes the program to perform (Fig. 1 shows a communication device 101 (communication device) with processor, memory, device 105 (second device), and wireless network 120. Paragraph 0067 discloses receiving frames from a video encoder 116 (first device). Paragraph 0046 discloses the video encoder 116 is external video camera):
receiving packets from the first device (paragraph 0067 discloses receiving frames (packet) as stated “In operation 310 a processor at a wireless transmitting device (e.g., processor 113 of wireless communication device 101 of FIG. 1) may receive, over a video input channel, an ordered sequence of incoming video frames generated by a video encoder (e.g., 116 of FIG. 1)”).
identifying a chunk, which is a data unit in upper layers, to which the packets belong (Fig. 2 show GOP 201 (Chunk) to which I-frame, B-frame, P-frame belongs as explained in paragraph 0030. Paragraph 0028 discloses frames in a GOPs are arranged in sequence while each GOP started with a I-frame for identification of the other frames that belongs to the same GOP);
controlling storing the packets into a buffer and discarding the packets from the buffer based on the chunk to which the packets belong (paragraph 0068 discloses storing the video frames in a transmission queue. paragraph 0050 discloses discarding frames of GOP); and
reading the packets from the buffer and transmitting the read packets to a second device (paragraph 0070 discloses transmitting the packet from the transmission queue. Paragraph 0045 discloses transmitting frames to the device 105),
wherein the controlling of discarding of the packets includes discarding, based on whether a first packet that is received can be stored into the buffer and based on a first chunk to which the first packet belongs, a second packet which is a stored packet in the buffer and all the other packets belonging to the same chunk as the second packet and stored in the buffer in the buffer, wherein the chunk to which the second packet and all the other packets belong is either the first chunk or a second chunk (paragraph 0050 discloses discarding, based on whether an received I-frame expected to be dropped and based on the GOP to which the I-frame frame belongs, all frames belonging to the same GOP that are stored in the buffer as stated, “In an embodiment, the processor 113 may be configured to, whenever a reference frame (e.g., an I or IDR frame) is expected to be dropped, drop all other frames belonging to the same GOP of the reference frame (in addition to, or instead of, dropping the reference frame).” ).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Barta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Barta further teaches wherein the processor identifies the chunk based on a
reception interval of the packets that are received (paragraph 0028 discloses frames in a GOPs are arranged sequence while each GOP started with a I-frame for identification of the other frames that belongs to the same GOP. Therefore, reception of frames in the interval of the GOP identifies the frames belong to the GOP).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Barta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Barta further teaches wherein the chunks are frames generated by compression of video (see at least paragraph 0014 disclosing the GOPs of Fig. 2 are generated by compression of video).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Barta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Barta further teaches wherein the processor, when the first packet cannot be stored into the buffer due to exceeding a capacity of the buffer, discards the packets including the second packet and belonging to a second chunk which is different from the first chunk to which the first packet belongs (paragraph 0064 discloses dropping all frames including reference frame of an GOP from the queue to store incoming reference frame of a different GOP. Each GOP has only one reference frame).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Barta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Barta further teaches wherein the processor, when the first packet cannot be stored into the buffer due to exceeding a capacity of the buffer, discards the packets including the second packet and belonging to a second chunk which is different from a first chunk to which the first packet belongs and stored into the buffer earliest in time (paragraph 0064 discloses dropping all frames including reference frame of an GOP from the queue to store incoming reference frame of a different GOP. Each GOP has only one reference frame).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Barta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Barta further teaches wherein the processor, when the first packet has been stored into the buffer, discards the packets including the second packet and belonging to a second chunk which is different from a first chunk to which the first packet belongs and stored into the buffer earlier than the first packet (paragraph 0064 discloses dropping all frames including reference frame of an GOP from the queue to store incoming reference frame of a different GOP. Each GOP has only one reference frame. Frames of the GOP that is store in the queue are earlier than the incoming frames of the different GOP).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Barta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Barta further teaches wherein the processor, when the first packet has been stored into the buffer, discards the packets including the second packet and belonging to a second chunk which is
different from a first chunk to which the first packet belongs and stored into the buffer earliest in time (paragraph 0064 discloses dropping all frames including reference frame of an GOP from the queue to store incoming reference frame of a different GOP. Each GOP has only one reference frame. Frames of the GOP that is store in the queue are earlier than the incoming frames of the different GOP).
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Barta teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as shown above.
Barta further teaches wherein the processor, when an importance level of the second
packet exceeds a predetermined importance level, does not discard the packets including the second packet and belonging to the second chunk (paragraph 0035 discloses reference frames are of the highest importance and are not discarded).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Barta teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as shown above.
Barta further teaches wherein the processor, when an importance level of the first packet exceeds a predetermined importance level, discards the packets including the second packet and belonging to the second chunk regardless of the importance level of the second packet (paragraph 0064 discloses dropping all frames including reference frame of an GOP from the queue to store incoming reference frame of a different GOP. ).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Barta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Barta further teaches wherein the processor, when the first packet cannot be stored into the buffer due to exceeding a capacity of the buffer, discards the second packet belonging to the first chunk (paragprhe 0038 discloses discarding P or B frames to accommodate I frame).
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Barta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Barta further teaches wherein the communication device is mounted to a mobile object (paragraph 0046 discloses the communication device 101 can be mounted on a drone).
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is directed towards a communication method performed by the communication device of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 17 is directed towards a co computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program, the program causing to perform the method of claim 17. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
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 4, 5, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barta in view of Cao et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20200280521 A1).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Barta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Barta does not teach wherein the processor identifies the chunk based on the
identifier contained in an IP header of the packet.
Cao teaches wherein the processor identifies the chunk based on the identifier contained in an IP header of the packet (paragraph 0076 discloses identifying packet based on the IP header).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barta to incorporate the teaching of Cao about identifying packet based on the IP header. One would be motivated to do that to identify flows with different priorities and providing preferential treatment to the packets with higher priority under network constraints (see at least paragraph 0073 of Cao).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Barta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Barta does not teach wherein the processor identifies the chunk based on a TCP/UDP payload of the packet.
Cao teaches wherein the packet identification unit identifies the chunk based on the TCP/UDP payload of the packet (paragraph 0076 discloses identifying packet based on TCP/IP payload).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barta to incorporate the teaching of Cao about identifying packet identifying packet based on TCP/IP payload. One would be motivated to do that to improve transmission efficiency (see at least paragraph 0076 of Cao).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Barta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Barta does not teach wherein the processor identifies communication flow to which the packets belong, and the buffer control unit controls storing the packets into the buffer and discarding the packets from based on the communication flow to which the packets belong.
Cao teaches wherein the processor identifies communication flow to which the packets belong, and the buffer control unit controls storing the packets into the buffer and discarding the packets from based on the communication flow to which the packets belong (paragraph 0126 discloses discarding packets based on the priority of the flow).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barta to incorporate the teaching of Cao about discarding packets based on the priority of the flow. One would be motivated to do that to identify flows with different priorities and providing preferential treatment to the packets with higher priority under network constraints (see at least paragraph 0073 of Cao).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barta in view of Cnudde et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20080107031 A1), hereinafter, Cnudde.
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Barta teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as shown above.
Barta does not teach wherein processor, when the packets stored in the buffer and
belonging to the second chunk exceed a predetermined ratio of all the packets belonging to the second chunk, discards the packets belonging to the second chunk.
Cnudde teaches wherein the processor, when the packets stored in the buffer and
belonging to the second chunk exceed a predetermined ratio of all the packets belonging to the second chunk, discards the packets belonging to the second chunk (paragraph discarding packet based on the queue ratio of stored packet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barta to incorporate the teaching of Cnudde about discarding packet based on the queue ratio of stored packet. One would be motivated to do that to improve the efficiency of transmission of video (see at least the Abstract of Cnudde).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Barta in view of Cnudde teach all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above.
Barta does not teach wherein the processor, when the packets stored in the buffer and belonging to the second chunk exceed a predetermined ratio of all the packets belonging to the second chunk, stops transmitting the packets stored in the buffer and belonging to the second chunk.
Cnudde teaches wherein the processor, when the packets stored in the buffer and belonging to the second chunk exceed a predetermined ratio of all the packets belonging to the second chunk, stops transmitting the packets stored in the buffer and belonging to the second chunk (paragraph discarding packet based on the queue ratio of stored packet. Discarded packets are not transmitted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barta to incorporate the teaching of Cnudde about stopping transmission based on the queue ratio of stored packet. One would be motivated to do that to improve the efficiency of transmission of video (see at least the Abstract of Cnudde).
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 KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
September 11, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights