Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
2. This is a final action on the merits in response to the reply received 1/29/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
In addition, applicant argues that Casini teaches away from the combination of Lee. While the applicant's points are understood, the examiner respectfully disagrees. “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). “The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Rejection is maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10601445 (15953666). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims.
Claim 2-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-83 of U.S. Patent No. 8151305 (12167708). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the claims of this application and the patented claims is that Applicant has added wherein control information is modulated with a pseudorandom sequence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. in re Karison, 136 USPO 184 (COPA 1963).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-19, 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 20060171418 A1-Casini et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Casini”), in view of US 20080176517 A1-Lee et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Lee”).
Regarding claim 2, Casini discloses a method for receiving an audiovisual stream by a mobile device in a wireless manner ([0083], mobile communication; [0051], wireless connections), wherein the mobile device comprises a receiver implementing a physical layer ([0009], physical layer), the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of packets (abstract, receiver packet; fig 1, shows SAT receiving packets from ST, [0052], wherein ST transmits large packets), wherein the plurality of packets comprises audiovisual information and encoded control information ([0063-0064], wherein several control information is provided; [0130], mpeg packets. Mpeg packets include audiovisual information), wherein the encoded control information is modulated with a pseudorandom sequence ([0063-0064], pseudorandom sequence), wherein the pseudorandom sequence is known by the mobile device ([0083]);
decoding the encoded control information based at least in part on the pseudorandom sequence to obtain control information ([0063], decoded), wherein the control information comprises commands for modifying operation of the physical layer by the receiver ([0009], wherein modifications at the level of physical layer).
Casini fails to disclose processing the audiovisual information by the receiver according to the modified operation of the physical layer; and presenting the audiovisual information on at least one of a display and one or more speakers of the mobile device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses processing the audiovisual information by the receiver according to the modified operation of the physical layer ([0003], wherein mobile VT applications, a VT device receives the physical layer packets via a wireless forward link (FL) (or "downlink") from a base station to the VT device, which may be a mobile wireless terminal such as a cellular radiotelephone. A VT device transmits the PHY layer packets via a wireless reverse link (RL) (or "uplink") from the VT device to the base station. Each VT device includes PHY and MAC layers to convert the received PHY and MAC layer packets and reassemble the packet payloads into audio packets and video packets); and presenting the audiovisual information on at least one of a display and one or more speakers of the mobile device ([0003], wherein A video decoder within the VT device decodes the video data for presentation to a user via a display device. An audio decoder within the VT device decodes the audio data for presentation via an audio speaker. Likewise, a VT device may include a video encoder and audio encoder to encode video and audio, respectively, for transmission to another VT device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Casini to disclose processing the audiovisual information by the receiver according to the modified operation of the physical layer; and presenting the audiovisual information on at least one of a display and one or more speakers of the mobile device as taught by Lee, to manage video data error control that may increase video encoder efficiency (Lee, [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the control information further comprises second commands for modifying at least one second communication layer in the receiver, wherein the second commands are based on current parameters of the physical layer, wherein the method further comprises: modifying the at least one second communication layer in the receiver according
to the second commands ([0002-0003], wherein a second communication layer, mac layer is modified, by being converted).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of packets is received over a wireless communication medium ([00003], wireless); wherein the commands for modifying operation of the physical layer by the receiver are based at least in part on channel conditions of the wireless communication medium ([0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the control information further comprises second commands for modifying at least one second communication layer in the receiver ([0003], wherein the second commands are based on current parameters of a plurality of communication layers, wherein the method further comprises: modifying the at least one second communication layer in the receiver according to the second commands ([00003]).
Regarding claims 6, Lee discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the control information further comprises second commands for at least one second modification of the physical layer in the receiver, wherein the second commands are based on current parameters of a plurality of communication layers, wherein the method further comprises: modifying the physical layer in the receiver according to the at least one second modification ([0003]).
Regarding claim 8, Casini discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the control information further comprises at least one second command for changing one or more of: a codec type used by the mobile device; a transport configuration of packets received by the mobile device; signaling used in packets received by the mobile device; an announcement used in packets received by the mobile device; an amount of forward error correction applied to received packets ([0063, FEC. The claims require only one); an encoding scheme used by the mobile device; and a modulation scheme used by the mobile device.
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the audiovisual information comprises audiovisual information meant for stationary devices ([0003]), wherein the plurality of packets further comprises error correction intended to improve mobile reception of the audiovisual information meant for stationary devices ([0047], error correction).
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 4 and are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 5 and are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 9 and are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 4 and are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 9 and are applicable for claim 21.
Claims 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 20060171418 A1-Casini et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Casini”), in view of US 20080176517 A1-Lee et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Lee”), US 20070280257 A1-Vare et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Vare”)
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the method of claim 2 (SEE claim 2),
Cansini and Lee fail to disclose wherein the control information further comprises second commands for modifying one or more parameters in one or more of: a presentation layer in the mobile device; and a management layer in the mobile device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vare discloses wherein the control information further comprises second commands for modifying one or more parameters in one or more of: a presentation layer in the mobile device; and a management layer in the mobile device ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Casini and Lee to disclose wherein the control information further comprises second commands for modifying one or more parameters in one or more of: a presentation layer in the mobile device; and a management layer in the mobile device as taught by Vare, to provide compatible interactivity between data formats ([0042], Vare).
Regarding claim 15, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 7. and are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 20, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 7. and are applicable for claim 20.
Claim 10 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 20060171418 A1-Casini et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Casini”), in view of US 20080176517 A1-Lee et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Lee”), in view of US 20080320526 A1-Franceschini et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Fres”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the method of claim 2 (See claim 2),
Casini and Lee fail to disclose wherein the control information is located in a different one or more packets of the plurality of packets than the audiovisual information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fran discloses wherein the control information is located in a different one or more packets of the plurality of packets than the audiovisual information ([0043], wherein for the physical layer in handling the transmission and reception of stream data and the radio link control in handling controls and or retransmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Casini and Lee to disclose wherein the control information is located in a different one or more packets of the plurality of packets than the audiovisual information as taught by Fran, to improve data exchange capabilities ([0004], Fran).
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 LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights