CTFR 18/816,362 CTFR 100758 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 regarding the prior art rejections of Claims 1 – 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Remarks argue that: 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0321418 Al (hereinafter, "Rinne") in view of US 2017/0006312 Al (hereinafter, "Yang"). Office Action at 2. The rejections are respectfully traversed. According to MPEP 2143.03, Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. According to In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See also the Manual of Patent Practice (MPEP § 2142) - "the examiner bears the initial burden of factually supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness." Also, Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex,Inc., 99 USPQ2d 1858, 1863 (Fed. Cir. 2011) noted that "[o]bviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention. Id. at 421...." The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be made explicit. The Federal Circuit has stated that "rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Applicants provide the following reasons for the non-obviousness of claim 1 without conceding that the reference(s) teach, suggest, or otherwise enable one of ordinary skill in the art as to other features of this and other claims not specifically addressed in this paper. Claim 1 is representative of claims 1-20 for the purposes of this rejection. Therefore, the reasoning advanced here with respect to claim 1 applies similarly to the other independent claims and their corresponding dependent claims. Independent claim 1 has been amended as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: detecting a first data sequence by a system, responsive to the detecting, determining by the system in real time whether a number of datapoints in the first data sequence is expressible as a pattern by an expression; and responsive to the determining, deciding to transform a datapoint in the first data sequence to the expression in a second data sequence wherein the first data sequence is transformed to the second data sequence and the second data sequence comprises the expression and a datapoint that is determined not to be expressible as the expression of the second data sequence. Dependent claims 4 and 5 which are representative of claims 11 and 18 and claims 12 and 19 respectively, are amended as follows: 4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising comparing the datapoint in the first data sequence with the expression in the second data sequence to determine whether to transform the datapoint to the expression in the second data sequence. 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining comprises deriving the expression by regressively determining the pattern from the number of datapoints in the first data sequence. Support may be found, for example, in paragraph [0024] "determining that a datapoint of a first data sequence does not fit a pattern and is not expressible as an expression"; paragraphs [0025] and [0083] "the second data sequence comprises of a hybrid bounded and unbounded data sequence... the data pattern recognizer could not determine a new expression, the datapoint would be considered as unbounded data"; and paragraph [0079] for "the derived expression is cached in buffer memory" and "applies a regression algorithm" to the datapoints. Applicant respectfully disagree that Rinne - Yang individually or in combination teaches or suggests the features of claim 1. Rinne describes in paragraphs [0006], [0067] and [0068]: "Methods, apparatuses, and computer program products are herein provided for coverage enhancement of delay limited services... comprise generating one or more transport blocks. .. In some embodiments, even if a code block 602 includes the same Transport Block 604 that is defined by its information contents, the bit mapping of the code block 602 to the modulation symbols or the mapping of the redundancy information in the code block 602 may differ from one code block to another." In other words, Rinne mentions modulation of bits in the transport block by mapping of bits to the modulation symbols without further mentioning how the mapping is achieved. Rinne is deficient in teaching or suggesting "a number of datapoints in the first data sequence is expressible as a pattern by an expression" as recited by the amended claim 1. Rinne also mentions in paragraph [0068]: "Incremental redundancy coding allows any modification of a channel code or modification of mapping the channel coded bits to the modulation symbols between the retransmissions of code blocks, whenever the information contents of the transport blocks remain equal (e.g. replicas)." Rinne describes modification of channel code or modification of mapping the channel coded bits to the modulation symbols between the retransmissions of code blocks but makes no mention of a first data sequence is transformed to the second data sequence as recited by amended claim 1. The mention of retransmissions of code blocks does not describe to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the application the transform steps of claim 1. Clearly, Rinne fails to teach or suggest to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the application the limitation "transform a datapoint in the first data sequence to the expression in a second data sequence wherein the first data sequence is transformed to the second data sequence and t he second data sequence comprises the expression and a datapoint that is determined not to be expressible as the expression of the second data sequence" reci ted by the amended claim 1. Yang does not cure these deficiencies. Yang describes in the abstract and paragraph [0008]: "a video decoding and recording in real-time video communications for use in lossy network environments... A determination is then made, by the missing packet detector, as to whether the received video packets have any missing video packets, which can be indicative of an eventual packet loss at the video receiver. For example, the missing packet detector can detect such missing video packets by inspecting the sequence numbers of the video packets stored in the jitter buffer." Yang is describing packet loss in video decoding and recording but is silent on the limitations of the amended claim 1. Since Rinne - Yang in combination or individually are deficient in teaching or suggesting the limitations of claim 1, it follows Rinne - Yang are also deficient in teaching or suggesting the features of amended claims 4, 5, 11 and 18. Additionally, Applicant asserts Rinne - Yang are not combinable since Rinne explains its subject matter is "delay limited services. . . comprise generating one or more transport blocks" and Yang explains its subject matter is "a video decoding and recording in real-time video communications for use in lossy network environments". In contrast, the present application describes a problem to be solved, for example, in an Application Performance Monitoring (APM) domain of "continuously sending metrics value that has not changed is an inefficient use of network resources." See para. [0014]. The respective subject matters are not analogous to the pending application or have the same purpose. Thus, the references are not in the same field of endeavor or pertinent or reasonably pertinent to the present claims. See MPEP 2141.01(a). Furthermore, Examiner must show technical reasons that the skilled artisan, confronted with the same problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the elements from the cited prior art references for combination in the manner claimed. In re Rouffet, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). Since Rinne - Yang in combination or individually are deficient in teaching or suggesting the limitations of claims 1- 20, the prima facie case of obviousness is not established. For the foregoing reasons, applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-20 are patentable over the prior art cited by the Examiner and are presently in a condition for allowance. The Examiner agrees Rinne - Yang in combination or individually are deficient in teaching or suggesting the limitations of claims 1- 20. However, with the addition of the Blalock (NPL), all claim limitations are taught and any deficiencies from Rinne and Yang are cured. Blalock teaches reading time-series data sequences (detecting) and "waits for a block in which some error is nonzero and then writes out the number of all-zero blocks” (determing) and write D 0s as headers...write number of all-zero blocks as payloads (transform). (Blalock, Section 4) The lack of clear and concise terminology in the claims leave the claims broad in scope and open to interpretation. The previous prior art rejection is maintained. Claims 2 – 7 which depend from amended claim 1, have been considered and rejected. Claims 9 – 14 which depend from amended claim 8, have been considered and rejected. Claims 16 – 20 which corresponds to amended claim 15 have been considered and rejected . 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “responsive to”, “deciding to”, and “transformed to” in claims 1, 8, and 15. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more. Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite: detecting a first data sequence by a system; responsive to the detecting, determining by the system in real time whether a number of datapoints in the first data sequence is expressible as a pattern by an expression; and responsive to the determining, deciding to transform a datapoint in the first data sequence to the expression in a second data sequence; wherein the first data sequence is transformed to the second data sequence and the second data sequence comprises the expression and the datapoint that is determined not to be expressible as the expression of the second data sequence. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 is a process. Claim 8 is an article of manufacture. Claim 15 is a machine. Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The ‘detecting’ limitation in # 1 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making an identification associated with data. The ‘determining’ limitation in # 2 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person thinking about data. The ‘deciding’ limitation in # 3 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “deciding” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making a decision about data. The ‘determined’ limitation in # 4 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determined” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making a determination about data. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements: one or more computer readable storage media (Claim 8 and 15), a processor (Claims 8 and 15), program instructions (Claims 8 and 15) These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception . Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, with regards to # 1 through # 4 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec , 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC , 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. , 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook , 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life , 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp ’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); and iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l , 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial , 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log). For at least the reasoning provided above, Claims 1 - 20 are patent ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinne (US 2014/0321418 A1) in view of Yang (US 2017/0006312 A1) in view of Blalock (NPL) . In regards to claim 1, Rinnie teaches: A computer-implemented method comprising: detecting a first data sequence by a system (0060, The PHICH additionally, for example, has the additional benefit that its processing time can be set to a minimum, as it only requires signal (ACK/NACK) sequence detection without decoding), in real time whether a number of datapoints in the first data sequence is expressible as a pattern by an expression (0067 & 0068, real time transmission protocol (RTP) headers; In some embodiments, even if a code block 602 includes the same Transport Block 604 that is defined by its information contents, the bit mapping of the code block 602 to the modulation symbols or the mapping of the redundancy information in the code block 602 may differ from one code block to another); and responsive to the determining, deciding to transform a datapoint in the first data sequence to the expression in a second data sequence wherein the first data sequence is transformed to the second data sequence (0068, Incremental redundancy coding allows any modification of a channel code or modification of mapping the channel coded bits to the modulation symbols between the retransmissions of code blocks, whenever the information contents of the transport blocks remain equal (e.g. replicas)). Rinnie fails to teach: responsive to the detecting, determining by the system However, Yang teaches: responsive to the detecting, determining by the system (0008, A determination is then made, by the missing packet detector, as to whether the received video packets have any missing video packets, which can be indicative of an eventual packet loss at the video receiver. For example, the missing packet detector can detect such missing video packets by inspecting the sequence numbers of the video packets stored in the jitter buffer) ; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Rinnie which teaches transforming bits in data sequences with the teaching of Yang which teaches responsive detecting and determining datapoints by the system in order to inspect for missing packets (Yang: 0008, missing packet detector can detect such missing video packets by inspecting the sequence numbers of the video packets). Rinnie in view of Yang fails to teach: and the second data sequence comprises the expression and the datapoint that is determined not to be expressible as the expression of the second data sequence. However, Blalock teaches: and the second data sequence comprises the expression and the datapoint that is determined not to be expressible as the expression of the second data sequence. (4.1, Run-length encoding. If a block of errors is all zeros, Sprintz waits for a block in which some error is nonzero and then writes out the number of all-zero blocks instead of the (otherwise empty) payload.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Rinnie which teaches transforming bits in data sequences with the teaching of Blalock which teaches a time series compression algorithm in order to reduce memory without increased latency. (Blalock: ¶2, it can decompress at over 3GB/s in a single thread, even faster than many algorithms with much lower compression ratios). In regards to claim 2, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Rinne teaches: wherein responsive to the determining, deciding to copy the datapoint in the first data sequence to the second data sequence (0063, the communications device 102 of FIG. 3, such as by the processor 110, the communications interface 114, the transport block transmission module 118 or the like, may cause data packet replicas to be transmitted to parallel HARQ processes. A replica as defined herein is a same, similar or copy that closely resembles or is identical to an original in general format, size and/or contents. Further, a replica may be defined as an exact copy of information contents of one to another). In regards to claim 3, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Rinne teaches: wherein the second data sequence comprises of a hybrid bounded and unbounded data sequence (0007, The method of this embodiment may also include causing the one or more transport blocks to be transmitted via parallel hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes). In regards to claim 4, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Rinne teaches: further comprising comparing the datapoint in the first data sequence with the expression in the second data sequence (0068, In some embodiments, even if a code block 602 includes the same Transport Block 604 that is defined by its information contents, the bit mapping of the code block 602 to the modulation symbols or the mapping of the redundancy information in the code block 602 may differ from one code block to another) . Rinnie fails to teach: to determine whether to transform the datapoint to the expression in the second data sequence. However, Yang teaches: to determine whether to transform the datapoint to the expression in the second data sequence. (0008, A determination is then made, by the missing packet detector, as to whether the received video packets have any missing video packets, which can be indicative of an eventual packet loss at the video receiver. For example, the missing packet detector can detect such missing video packets by inspecting the sequence numbers of the video packets stored in the jitter buffer) ; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Rinnie which teaches transforming bits in data sequences with the teaching of Yang which teaches responsive detecting and determining datapoints by the system in order to inspect for packets (Yang: 0008, missing packet detector can detect such missing video packets by inspecting the sequence numbers of the video packets). In regards to claim 5, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Rinne teaches: wherein the determining comprises deriving the expression by regressively determining the pattern from the number of datapoints in the first data sequence (0068, Incremental redundancy coding allows any modification of a channel code or modification of mapping the channel coded bits to the modulation symbols between the retransmissions of code blocks). In regards to claim 6, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Rinne teaches: deciding to compute a datapoint based on the expression (0068, the bit mapping of the code block 602 to the modulation symbols or the mapping of the redundancy information in the code block 602) . Rinnie fails to teach: further comprising detecting the expression from the second data sequence, responsive to the detecting, deciding to; However, Yang teaches: further comprising detecting the expression from the second data sequence, responsive to the detecting, deciding to (0038, packet detector 132 can detect such missing video packets by inspecting the sequence numbers of the video packets stored in the jitter buffer) ; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Rinnie which teaches transforming bits in data sequences with the teaching of Yang which teaches responsive detecting and determining datapoints by the system in order to inspect for packets (Yang: 0008, missing packet detector can detect such missing video packets by inspecting the sequence numbers of the video packets). In regards to claim 7, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Rinne teaches: wherein the number of datapoints in the first data sequence is predefined (0059, the access point 104 may be configured to transmit Negative acknowledgement (NACK) on PHICH at predetermined time but prior to the start of the transmissions on parallel HARQ processes). In regards to claim 8, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the claim and corresponds to claim 1 as analyzed accordingly. In regards to claim 9, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer program product of claim 8. The claim corresponds to claim 2 as analyzed accordingly. In regards to claim 10, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer program product of claim 8. The claim corresponds to claim 3 as analyzed accordingly. In regards to claim 11, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer program product of claim 8. The claim corresponds to claim 4 as analyzed accordingly. In regards to claim 12, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer program product of claim 8. The claim corresponds to claim 5 as analyzed accordingly. In regards to claim 13, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer program product of claim 8. The claim corresponds to claim 6 as analyzed accordingly. In regards to claim 14, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer program product of claim 8. The claim corresponds to claim 7 as analyzed accordingly. In regards to claim 15, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the claim and corresponds to claim 1 as analyzed accordingly. In regards to claim 16, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer system of claim 15. The claim corresponds to claim 2 as analyzed accordingly. In regards to claim 17, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer system of claim 15. The claim corresponds to claim 3 as analyzed accordingly. In regards to claim 18, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer system of claim 15. The claim corresponds to claim 4 as analyzed accordingly. In regards to claim 19, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer system of claim 15. The claim corresponds to claim 5 as analyzed accordingly. In regards to claim 20, Rinnie in view of Yang teaches the computer system of claim 15. The claim corresponds to claim 6 as analyzed accordingly. Prior Art Made of Record The prior art mode of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: CIPOLLI (US 2007/0206673 A1): Systems and methods for error resilient transmission and for random access in video communication systems are provided. Conclusion Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 regarding the prior art rejections of Claims 21 – 40 have been fully considered and are persuasive. 07-40 AIA 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 VICTOR PERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-6319. The examiner can 07-100 normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00. 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, Mark Featherstone can be reached on (571) 270-3750. 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. /V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2111 /GUERRIER MERANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111 6/3/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 2 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 3 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 4 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 5 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 6 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 7 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 8 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 9 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 10 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 11 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 12 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 13 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 14 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 15 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 16 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 17 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 18 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 19 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/816,362 Page 20 Art Unit: 2111
Prosecution Insights