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) 1-2, 6, 9-10, 14, 17, 22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong [US 2005/0013249] in view of Ramakrishnan [US 2011/0099437] and Lee [US 2010/0014419].
As claims 1, 10 and 18, Kong [US 2005/0013249] discloses a method comprising duplicating each of a subset of packets in a first sequence of packets to be transmitted [Par. 0022-0024, 0028-0029 discloses duplicated packets to create a stream of duplicated and original packets]; transmitting the first sequence of packets along with the duplicate packets [Par. 0022-0024, 0028-0029 discloses transmitting a stream of packets which includes duplicated and original packets and Fig 4, Ref 403/405, 407/409]. However, Kong fails to disclose for each acknowledgement received, determining whether the acknowledgement acknowledges receipt of one of the subset of packets; based on a determination that the acknowledgement acknowledges receipt of one of the subset of packets, determining whether a packet preceding the acknowledged packet has been acknowledged; and determining that at least one packet preceding the acknowledged packet has not yet been acknowledged and retransmitting the preceding packet prior to expiration of a retransmission timer corresponding to the at least one packet preceding the acknowledged packet. In the same field of endeavor, Ramakrishnan [US 2011/0099437] discloses each acknowledgement received, determining whether the acknowledgement acknowledges receipt of one of the subset of packets [Fig 10 discloses receiver send ACK of received packets such as 1 and 4-6 to sender, Par. 0058-0066, Fig 9 discloses retransmiting lost packet such as 2]; based on a determination that the acknowledgement acknowledges receipt of one of the subset of packets, determining whether a packet preceding the acknowledged packet has been acknowledged [Fig 10 discloses based on the result of determining of the ACKs, Packets 2-3 are not ACK by receiver, Par. 0058-0066, Fig 9 discloses retransmiting lost packet such as 2]; and determining that at least one packet preceding the acknowledged packet has not yet been acknowledged [Fig 10 discloses based on the result of determining of the ACKs, Packets 2-3 are not ACK by receiver, Par. 0058-0066, Fig 9 discloses retransmiting lost packet such as 2] and retransmitting the preceding packet the acknowledged packet [Fig 10, retransmission of 2 and 3 such as R-FEC, Par. 0004-0006, 0042-0050, 0056-0059, 0076-0081, Fig 9 discloses retransmiting lost packet such as 2]. However, Kong [US 2005/0013249] and Ramakrishnan [US 2011/0099437] fail to disclose retransmitting the preceding packet prior to expiration of a retransmission timer corresponding to the at least one packet preceding the acknowledged packet. In the same field of endeavor, Lee [US 2010/0014419] discloses retransmitting the preceding packet prior to expiration of a retransmission timer corresponding to the at least one packet preceding the acknowledged packet [Fig 4, Ref 422].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising retransmitting the preceding packet prior to expiration of a retransmission timer corresponding to the at least one packet preceding the acknowledged packet as disclosed by Lee [US 2010/0014419] into a method and system comprising each acknowledgement received, determining whether the acknowledgement acknowledges receipt of one of the subset of packets; based on a determination that the acknowledgement acknowledges receipt of one of the subset of packets, determining whether a packet preceding the acknowledged packet has been acknowledged; and determining that at least one packet preceding the acknowledged packet has not yet been acknowledged and retransmitting the preceding packet corresponding to the at least one packet preceding the acknowledged packet as disclosed by Ramakrishnan [US 2011/0099437] into the teaching of Kong [US 2005/0013249]. The motivation would have been to improve the quality of signal.
As claim 2, Kong [US 2005/0013249] discloses the transmitting is burst transmitting [Fig 4].
As claims 6, 14 and 22, Kong [US 2005/0013249] discloses for each packet in the subset of packets, distributing at least one duplicate of the packet after the packet within the sequence of packets [Fig 4 and Par. 0029].
As claims 9, 17 and 25, Ramakrishnan [US 2011/0099437] discloses retransmitting the preceding packet comprises retransmitting duplicates of the preceding packet [Fig 10, Ref R-FEC].
Claim(s) 3-5, 11-13 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong [US 2005/0013249], Ramakrishnan [US 2011/0099437] and Lee [US 2010/0014419]as applied to claims 1, 10 and 18 above, and further in view of Wong [US 2011/0142034].
As claims 3, 11 and 19, Kong [US 2005/0013249], Ramakrishnan [US 2011/0099437] and Lee [US 2010/0014419] fail to disclose what Wong [US 2011/0142034] discloses the duplicating is according to a first parameter that specifies an amount of duplicates [Fig 6-8, Di is number of sender need to duplicate a packet] and a second parameter that specifies which packets in a sequence of packets to duplicate [Par. 0033 discloses I-frames are duplicated].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising the duplicating is according to a first parameter that specifies an amount of duplicates and a second parameter that specifies which packets in a sequence of packets to duplicate as disclosed by Wong [US 2011/0142034] into the teaching of Kong [US 2005/0013249], Ramakrishnan [US 2011/0099437] and Lee [US 2010/0014419]. The motivation would have been to improve the quality of signal.
As claims 4, 12 and 20, Wong [US 2011/0142034] discloses tracking packet loss correlated to at least one of the first and second parameters across transmissions of a plurality of sequences of packets, wherein the plurality of sequences includes the first sequence of packets [Fig 4-8 discloses monitoring the loss of packets in order to adjust the Di value of duplicating packets, Par. 0007]; determining whether packet loss is increasing [Par. 0011]; and adjusting at least one of the first and second parameters to increase duplicates based on a determination that packet loss is increasing [Fig 4-8, Di is adjusted based on loss rate].
As claims 5, 13 and 21, Wong [US 2011/0142034] discloses terminating duplicating if packet loss exceeds a threshold [Fig 5-6, stop duplicating, Par. 0056-0057].
Claim(s) 7, 15 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong [US 2005/0013249], Ramakrishnan [US 2011/0099437] and Lee [US 2010/0014419] as applied to claims 1, 10 and 18 above, and further in view of Guo [US 2007/0230496].
As claims 7, 15 and 23, Kong [US 2005/0013249], Ramakrishnan [US 2011/0099437] and Lee [US 2010/0014419] fail to disclose what Guo [US 2007/0230496] discloses distributing the duplicates of the subset of packets throughout the sequence while ensuring a duplicate packet has a same or higher sequence number than a preceding packet [Fig 3, duplicate packet has a same sequence number of preceding packet].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising distributing the duplicates of the subset of packets throughout the sequence while ensuring a duplicate packet has a same or higher sequence number than a preceding packet as disclosed by Guo [US 2007/0230496] into the teaching of Kong [US 2005/0013249], Ramakrishnan [US 2011/0099437] and Lee [US 2010/0014419]. The motivation would have been to improve the quality of signal.
Claim(s) 8, 16 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong [US 2005/0013249], Ramakrishnan [US 2011/0099437] and Lee [US 2010/0014419] as applied to claims 1, 10 and 18 above, and further in view of Plamondon [US 2007/0206621].
As claims 8, 16 and 24, Kong [US 2005/0013249], Ramakrishnan [US 2011/0099437] and Lee [US 2010/0014419] fail to disclose what Plamondon [US 2007/0206621] discloses inserting the duplicate packets at the end of the first sequence of packets [Fig 7a and Par. 0223].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising inserting the duplicate packets at the end of the first sequence of packets as disclosed by Plamondon [US 2007/0206621] into the teaching of Kong [US 2005/0013249], Ramakrishnan [US 2011/0099437] and Lee [US 2010/0014419]. The motivation would have been to improve the quality of signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3159. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
