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 .
Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the claims filed on September 29, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/930,523. The claimed “latency jitter distribution” of copending Application 18/930,523 and the claimed “latency variation distribution” of the present application are synonymous in the art, as such both sets of claims are deemed to be substantially the same.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolding et al (US PGPub No: 2021/0250787) in view of Korus et al (US PGPub No: 2014/0177436), hereafter referred to as Kolding and Korus, respectively.
With regard to claims 1, 8, and 15, Kolding teaches through Korus, a data transmission method performed by an electronic device, the method comprising: obtaining a latency variation (i.e. jitter) distribution characteristic of a service data packet, the latency variation (jitter) distribution characteristic indicating a transmission latency range of the service data packet; detecting a network transmission characteristic between an application server (AS) and a core network gateway (Kolding teaches a network device comprising an application function server (AS) connected to a network bridge (core network gateway); see paragraphs 34 and 36, Kolding. The network communicates flow parameters including periodic cycle of data flows (distribution characteristic) in terms of user plane, delays (latency range), and jitter (latency variation range/distribution); see paragraphs 34 and 36, Kolding. Applicant’s specifications cite UPF (user plane function) as being a core network gateway);
adjusting the latency variation distribution characteristic of the service data packet based on the network transmission characteristic, to obtain an adjusted latency variation distribution characteristic (Based on the communicated information, the bridge adjusts the scheduling in terms of the data flow periodicity and window timing in terms of guaranteeing a min and/or max latency for an interval of time; see paragraphs 34 and 36, Kolding);
and transmitting the adjusted latency variation distribution characteristic to a core network element, wherein the core network element is configured to control data transmission based on the adjusted latency variation distribution characteristic (see Korus below)
While Kolding teaches a network that deals with jitter and provides communication between an application function server (AS) and a network bridge that deals in the user plane (applicant’s specifications defines a core network device as a user plane function (UPF), Kolding does not explicitly cite a core network device. In the same field of endeavor, Korus also teaches a network that deals with jitter, in particular jitter buffer adjustment; see paragraphs 84 and 86, Korus. Korus explains how the network has an infrastructure device such as an application server, in communication with an LTE Evolved Packet Core device such as an E-MBMS gateway (i.e. core network device); see paragraph 29 and Figure 1, Korus. Korus teaches two or more E-MBMS bearers/devices sending the same content/streams to the UE, allowing for missing packets to be detected and filled in; see paragraphs 63 and 86, Korus. Packets can go missing when a UE moves from one location to another; see paragraph 63, Korus. When a UE no longer needs to receive the same media stream over multiple E-MBMS bearers, it reports it to the application server to free up; see paragraph 79, Korus. Jitter buffer adjustment can then be performed on the E-MBMS gateway (adjusted latency variation (jitter) distribution (buffer) characteristic is transmitted to core network element (E-MBMS)); see paragraphs 84 and 86, Korus.
By using E-MBMS bearers/devices (core network devices), a network can provide multiple streams containing the same content and can detect and fill in missing packets; see paragraphs 28 and 63, Korus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to use core network devices (i.e. E-MBMS) to ensure data is transmitted reliably.
With regard to claims 2, 9, and 16, Kolding teaches through Korus, the method wherein the service data packet is a periodic service data packet; and the method further comprises: determining periodicity information of the periodic service data packet based on at least one of the following factors: an encoding/decoding manner of the service data packet, a multimedia service flow transmission parameter corresponding to the service data packet, a push parameter of the AS for a multimedia service flow, and a pull parameter of the AS for the multimedia service flow (Kolding teaches characteristic information comprising data flow parameters (multimedia service flow transmission parameters corresponding to the service data packet) including a periodic cycle; see paragraphs 28, 30, and 191-192, Kolding).
With regard to claims 3 and 10, Kolding teaches through Korus, the method wherein the latency variation distribution characteristic comprises a maximum latency variation value and a minimum latency variation value, and the method further comprises: obtaining a network transmission status of the service data packet obtained by the AS through statistics collection; and determining the maximum latency variation value and the minimum latency variation value based on the network transmission status of the service data packet (Kolding teaches how based on the communicated information, the bridge adjusts the scheduling in terms of the data flow periodicity and window timing in terms of guaranteeing a min and/or max latency for an interval of time; see paragraphs 34 and 36, Kolding).
With regard to claims 4, 11, and 17, Kolding teaches through Korus, the method wherein the detecting a network transmission characteristic between an AS and a core network gateway comprises: dynamically detecting a transmission link between the AS and the core network gateway; and determining a transmission bandwidth and a latency change of the transmission link based on a dynamic detection result of the transmission link (Kolding teaches how the network capabilities, such traffic flow and delays and payload size, can dynamically change over times, and can be changed in as little as fractions of milliseconds; see paragraph 54, Kolding).
With regard to claims 5, 12, and 18, Kolding teaches through Korus, the method wherein the detecting a network transmission characteristic between an AS and a core network gateway comprises: determining the network transmission characteristic between the AS and the core network gateway based on a service level agreement (SLA) between the AS and a core network (Kolding supports QoS (e.g. SLA) parameters being used and met; see paragraphs 98-101 and 104, and 118-119, Kolding).
With regard to claims 6, 13, and 19, Kolding teaches through Korus, the method wherein the detecting a network transmission characteristic between an AS and a core network gateway comprises: dynamically detecting a transmission link between the AS and the core network gateway based on an SLA between the AS and a core network, to obtain a transmission bandwidth and a latency change of the transmission link (Kolding supports QoS (e.g. SLA) parameters being used and met; see paragraphs 98-101 and 104, and 118-119, Kolding. QoS parameters can include transmission rate and delay budget; see paragraphs 107 and 118, Kolding).
With regard to claims 7, 14, and 20, Kolding teaches through Korus, the method wherein the adjusting the latency variation distribution characteristic of the service data packet based on the network transmission characteristic comprises: obtaining a rule of impact of the network transmission characteristic on the latency variation distribution characteristic of the service data packet; and adjusting the latency variation distribution characteristic of the service data packet based on the impact rule (Kolding teaches how based on the communicated information, the bridge adjusts the scheduling in terms of the data flow periodicity and window timing in terms of guaranteeing a min and/or max latency for an interval of time; see paragraphs 34 and 36, Kolding. The adjustments can be made based on rules; see paragraphs 34 and 36, Kolding).
The obviousness motivation applied to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, are applicable to their respective dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AZIZUL Q CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-3909. The examiner can normally be reached 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, EMMANUEL MOISE can be reached at (571) 272-3865. 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.
/AZIZUL CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455