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 . The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11 and 27 recite(s) the limitation "is inserted", “is set”, and “is determined” in wherein clause. The language raises questions as to whether there is an active insertion/setting/determining step occurring as part of the method or if this is merely capturing a state of the data element(s) as being present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, or mental process, without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a single function that amounts to mere data gathering. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide for significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10, 12-17 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 22, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US 20240172049 A1 to Yang et al. (“Yang”) in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US 20190045578 A1 to Oyman et al. (“Oyman”)..
As to claim 1, Yang disclose(s) a wireless communication method, executable in a communication device, comprising:
retrieving, by a header processing layer, identification information of a packet and/or a packet group to which the packet belongs in a header extension of a real-time transport protocol header of the packet; (Yang; packet inspection ; [0078]; flow label includes bundle and group index; each of which teach a packet group; [0017] )
wherein the header processing layer is not a peer layer of a RTP layer. (Yang; lower layers of XR; [0020]; the RTP layer; [0016])
Yang does not expressly disclose a header extension of a real-time transport protocol.
Oyman discloses the packet belongs in a header extension of a real-time transport protocol.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the RTP extension header of Oyman and the packet bundling of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with streaming. Using the RTP header extension of Oyman would allow for bundles packets of Yang to be processed for efficiently and more compatibly with RTP.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 2, Yang-Oyman disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the identification information comprises packet group identifier and/or a packet identifier. (Yang; flow label includes bundle and group index; each of which teach an identifier; [0017] )
As to claim 22, Yang-Oyman disclose(s) a wireless communication device comprising:
a processor, configured to call and run a computer program stored in a memory, to cause a device in which the processor is installed to execute the method of any of claim 1. (Yang; [0069])
As to claim 4, Yang-Oyman disclose(s) the method of claim 2,
But does not expressly disclose wherein the identification information is inserted into a protocol data unit header of each packet among packets of the packet group in an identifier inserting layer.
Oyman discloses wherein the identification information is inserted into a protocol data unit header of each packet among packets of the packet group in an identifier inserting layer. (Oyman; Fig. 4; RTP header extension; [0041]-[0045])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the RTP extension header of Oyman and the packet bundling of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with streaming. Using the RTP header extension of Oyman would allow for bundles packets of Yang to be processed for efficiently and more compatibly with RTP.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 5, Yang-Oyman disclose(s) the method of claim 2, wherein the identification information is inserted into a header extension of a real-time transport protocol header in the PDU header. (Oyman; Fig. 4; RTP header extension; [0041]-[0045])
As to claim 27, Yang-Oyman disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the identification information is inserted in the header extension of the RTP header by a source point of the packet. (Oyman; Fig. 4; RTP header extension; [0041]-[0045])
See similar motivation to claim 4.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang-Oyman in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US 20130293393 A1 to Foerster et al. (“Foerster”).
As to claim 3, Yang-Oyman disclose(s) the method of claim 2,
But does not expressly disclose wherein the identification information is a packet serial number and/or packet-group-common SN that is incremented for each predefined number of consecutive different packet groups.
Foerster discloses wherein the identification information is a packet serial number (SN) and/or packet-group-common SN that is incremented for each predefined number of consecutive different packet groups. (Foerster; [0056])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the incrementing of Foerster and the bundle indexes of Yang-Oyman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with packet transmission. Using the incrementing of Foerster would allow for bundles to be uniquely identified. Using an incrementing index was a well known method for producing unique values to those of skill in the art at the time of invention.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang-Oyman in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US 20120069829 A1 to Cote et al. (“Cote”).
As to claim 9, Yang-Oyman disclose(s) the method of claim 1, further comprising:
delivering the packet to a lower layer when the packet identity of the packet is within a transmission window of the packet group; (Yang; IP packet for a video frame; [0015])
and dropping the packet when the packet identity of the packet exceeds the transmission window of the packet group; (Yang; drop all packets when packet not received within a delay bound; [0015])
But does not expressly disclose wherein the transmission window is configured for the a service stream, and the transmission window is delimited by a minimum frame packet-group-common serial number (SN) and a maximum packet-group-common SN.
Cote discloses wherein the transmission window is configured for the a service stream, and the transmission window is delimited by a minimum frame packet-group-common serial number (SN) and a maximum packet-group-common SN. (Cote; [0058])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the window minimum and maximum of Cote and the window of Yang-Oyman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with streaming. Using the minimum and maximum of Cote would allow for the time window of Yang to be set within a reasonable range.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang-Oyman in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US 20180109388 A1 to Gholmieh et al. (“Gholmieh”).
As to claim 18, Yang-Oyman disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose further comprising:
retrieving and removing the identification information from the PDU header of the packet;
the retrieving and removing of the identification information from the PDU header of the packet is performed in a header processing layer of the source point of the packet;
the determining as to whether to drop the packet associated with the identification information, the delivering of the packet, and the dropping of the packet are performed in a packet-dropping layer of the source point of the packet.
Gholmieh discloses retrieving and removing the identification information from the PDU header of the packet; (Gholmieh ; stripping extension headers [0038])
the retrieving and removing of the identification information from the PDU header of the packet is performed in a header processing layer of the source point of the packet; (Gholmieh ; stripping extension headers [0038]; at RTP layer; [0048])
the determining as to whether to drop the packet associated with the identification information, the delivering of the packet, and the dropping of the packet are performed in a packet-dropping layer of the source point of the packet. (Gholmieh ; discloses processing at RTP layer; [0048])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the header and packet processing at the RTP layer of Gholmieh and the header processing of Yang-Oymans. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with streaming. Using the header and packet processing of Gholmieh would allow for the packet and header processing of Yang to be processed for efficiently and more compatibly with RTP.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5606. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, OSCAR LOUIE can be reached on (571)270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445