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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecomte et al. (10,984,804) in view of Reznik (2013/0,282,917).
For claims 1, 4, Lecomte teaches a method and device (abstract) performed by a decoder (col. 14, lines 15-25; col. 15, lines 55-65) in a data/network communication system (col. 45, lines 5-10), the device including a processor (col. 44, lines 40-65), the method (background, summary and claims) comprising:
receiving, by the decoder (col. 16, lines 50-55), a payload (col. 16, lines 20-45)for at least one audio channel (col. 15, lines 55-65) encoded and transmitted (col. 11, lines 55-65), and indication information for the at least one audio channel (col. 15, lines 55-65; bit error/error occurrent is the indication information);
based on the indication information for a first audio channel indicating that no bit errors are detected in the payload for the first audio channel (col. 18, lines 1-10), producing, by the decoder, an output signal based on information in the received payload (col. 20, lines 10-25); and
based on the indication information for a second audio channel indicating that bit errors are detected in the payload for the second audio channel, generating, by the decoder, a substitute audio frame without using information in the received payload (col. 28, line 50 – col. 28, line 10; in the alt. col. 33, lines 35-45).
Lecomte does not expressly disclose that the data communication is wireless, with a transceiver or transmitter. Reznik teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes these limitations (Paras 62-63 and 70-73). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Reznik in order to provide improvements to stream handling (Paras 2-5).
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecomte and Reznik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greer et al. (9,026,434).
For claim 2, Lecomte teaches some usage of codecs (col. 28, lines 15-25), as does Reznik (Paras 102, 218) but neither teach the express details of this claim. Greer teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) wherein:
the received payload for the at least one audio channel (col. 21, line 60 – col. 22, lines 55) is based on a first codec parameter (col. 18, lines 15-30), and
the substitute audio frame is based on a second codec parameter (col. 17, lines 25-35).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Greer in order to provide improvements to the process of replacing frames (col. 2, lines 25-65) and to provide codec improvements (col. 3, lines 35-60).
For claim 3, Greer teaches the at least one of the first codec parameter or the second codec parameter includes an externally controlled (col. 26, lines 25-65 in view of col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 50) variable codec parameter (col. 13, lines 25-40).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (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 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.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights