DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 8/18/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 12, and 14 – 18 are pending, of which claims 1 and 9 are in independent form.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/18/2026 has been entered.
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.
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 – 4, 6 – 12, and 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter referred to as AAPA) in view of LeFever, U.S. Patent 4,599,732 (hereinafter referred to as LeFever), further in view of Sun et al., U.S. Patent Application 2008/0030894 (hereinafter referred to as Sun).
Referring to claim 1, AAPA discloses “A High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) signal detection method, comprising: receiving, by a processor of an apparatus, input data from a source apparatus through an HDMI standard” ([0004] of Applicant’s PGPub 2025/0203146 HDMI sink receiving an HDMI signal, [0003] of Applicant’s PGPub 2025/0203146 the signal from a source device. It is understood that an HDMI sink device includes a processor. Further, LeFever below teaches a processor); “comparing, by the processor,” “data” “to generate a comparison result”; “and determining, by the processor, whether a” “match” exists “to determine the HDMI standard corresponding to the input data” ([0005] of Applicant’s PGPub 2025/0203146 HDMI sink receiving an HDMI signal and detecting the data using an HDMI 2.0 clock rate. Further, “when the sink device detects the data pattern is "0101010 ... " pattern, the sink device may determine that the data is a HDMI 2.0 data. Conversely, when the sink device detects the data pattern is "00001111100001111 ... ", the sink device may determine that the data is an HDMI 1 .4 signal”).
AAPA does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the input data comprises a plurality of data sets,” “comparing, by the processor, each data set to a predefined reference pattern according to a slide window with the predefined reference pattern,” and “determining, by the processor, whether a total match count corresponding to the comparison result is less than a threshold to determine the HDMI standard corresponding to the input data.”
However, LeFever discloses “wherein the input data comprises a plurality of data sets” (Fig. 4), “comparing, by the processor, each data set to a predefined reference pattern according to a slide window with the predefined reference pattern” (Fig. 2 processor 41 and correlator detector 35. Fig. 4 reference sequence and its description at column 7 – 8 ‘Known Symbol Sequence Synchronization’ “for each successive frame (i+1), (i+2) . . . there will be an iteration in the time of commencement of the first correlation block by detector 35 of precisely one sample time. Thus, after 197 frames every one of the 2560 sample positions will have been checked for correlation with the known reference symbol sequence”) and “determining, by the processor, whether a total match count corresponding to the comparison result is less than a threshold to determine” that the known symbol sequence has been received at this position (column 7 line 32 – 57 “values corresponding to the successive ones and zeroes of a PN sequence to be correlated with the received symbol samples through the action of accumulators,” contents of accumulators are coupled to buffers and on “to processor 41 where they are squared, the square values summed, and the resulting sum compared with a threshold. If the threshold is exceeded a correlation peak is identified and thereby the location of the known symbol sequence within the frame is detected”).
Also, AAPA does not appear to explicitly disclose “comparing, by the processor, a first subset of a first data set of the plurality of data sets to the predefined reference pattern, wherein a length of the first subset is the same as the predefined reference pattern;” “and moving, by the processor, the slide window to a next subset of the first data set to compare the next subset to the predefined reference pattern.”
However, LeFever discloses “comparing, by the processor, a first subset of a first data set of the plurality of data sets to the predefined reference pattern, wherein a length of the first subset is the same as the predefined reference pattern” (Fig. 2 processor 41 and correlator detector 35. Column 7 lines 32 - 57 “digital values corresponding to the successive ones and zeroes of a PN sequence to be correlated with the received symbol samples.” Also Fig. 4 and column 7 lines 36 – 40 a PN sequence of 172 to be correlated with the received symbol samples and column 7 lines 58 – 65 frame symbol samples received each 172 symbol samples); “and moving, by the processor, the slide window to a next subset of the first data set to compare the next subset to the predefined reference pattern” (Fig. 4 and column 7 lines 49 – 56 “in carrying out its task of detecting the location of the known reference symbol sequence within a received frame of data, detector 35 operates on successive portions of the received symbols.” Also, column 7 line 57 – column 8 line 14 carrying out a process of successive correlations).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of LeFever with AAPA so that the detecting of the known symbol sequence (as in LeFever) is used for determining the HDMI standard corresponding to the input data (as in AAPA).
AAPA and LeFever are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is configuration of an interface.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of AAPA and LeFever before him or her, to modify the teachings of AAPA to include the teachings of LeFever so that a sliding window is used to compare each received data set to a predefined reference pattern while using a threshold.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means for a receiver/sink to synchronize itself to received data signals (as stated by LeFever at column 1 lines 9 – 14). Further, a threshold is known to minimize the effect of outlier data bits.
LeFever further discloses a processor and a counter, as well as “an event that the first subset matches the predefined reference pattern” (Fig. 2 processor 41 and correlator detector 35. Fig. 3 counter 63. Column 7 lines 32 - 57 “digital values corresponding to the successive ones and zeroes of a PN sequence to be correlated with the received symbol samples”).
Neither AAPA nor LeFever appears to explicitly disclose “incrementing, by the processor, a match count corresponding to the first data set by 1 in an event that the first subset matches the predefined reference pattern.”
However, another sliding window approach for detecting reference patterns in an input stream is taught by Sun ([0046]). Sun discloses “comparing” data “to a predefined reference pattern according to a slide window” ([0046] sliding window approach to detect reference patterns in an input bit stream) and “incrementing, by the processor, a match count corresponding to the first data set by 1 in an event that the first subset matches the predefined reference pattern” ([0046] detector block 222 increments a pattern match counter 224 when a reference pattern is found over a sliding interval of the transmitted bit stream).
AAPA and LeFever are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is configuration of an interface. Also, both LeFever and Sun deal with pattern detection methods and comparing received data to a known pattern.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of AAPA, LeFever, and Sun before him or her, to modify the teachings of AAPA and LeFever to include the teachings of Sun so that a match count is incremented in an event that the first subset matches the predefined reference pattern.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means for marking and notifying of a found match.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sun with AAPA and LeFever to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 2, AAPA discloses “the HDMI standard comprises an HDMI 1.4 standard or an HDMI 2.0 standard” ([0004] of Applicant’s PGPub 2025/0203146 HDMI 1.4 and HDMI 2.0).
As per claim 3, AAPA discloses “the predefined reference pattern comprises a bit sequence in which 0 and 1 are alternately ordered” ([0005] of Applicant’s PGPub 2025/0203146 repeating sequence of “0101010…”).
As per claim 4, LeFever discloses “a length of each data set is equal to or longer than the predefined reference pattern” (Fig. 4).
As per claim 6, LeFever discloses “in an event that the first subset does not match the predefined reference pattern, moving, by the processor, the slide window to the next subset of the first data set to compare the next subset to the predefined reference pattern” (Fig. 4 and column 7 – 8 ‘Known Symbol Sequence Synchronization’ “for each successive frame (i+1), (i+2) . . . there will be an iteration in the time of commencement of the first correlation block by detector 35 of precisely one sample time. Thus, after 197 frames every one of the 2560 sample positions will have been checked for correlation with the known reference symbol sequence.” Column 7 lines 49 – 56 “in carrying out its task of detecting the location of the known reference symbol sequence within a received frame of data, detector 35 operates on successive portions of the received symbols.” Also, column 7 line 57 – column 8 line 14 carrying out a process of successive correlations).
As per claim 7, neither AAPA nor LeFever appears to explicitly disclose “a maximum of a match count corresponding to each data set is 1.”
However, another sliding window approach for detecting reference patterns in an input stream is taught by Sun ([0046]). Sun discloses incrementing “a match count corresponding each data set” ([0046] detector block 222 increments a pattern match counter 224 when a reference pattern is found over a sliding interval of the transmitted bit stream). Sun also discloses filtering counts at [0047].
While Sun does not appear to explicitly disclose “a maximum of a match count corresponding to each data set is 1,” this is a design decision and an obvious variant of Sun’s counter. In other words, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a counter for indicating a match.
AAPA and LeFever are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is configuration of an interface. Also, both LeFever and Sun deal with pattern detection methods and comparing received data to a known pattern.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of AAPA, LeFever, and Sun before him or her, to modify the teachings of AAPA and LeFever to include the teachings of Sun so that a match count is incremented in an event that the first subset matches the predefined reference pattern, the maximum of a match count being 1.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means for marking and notifying of a found match.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sun with AAPA and LeFever to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 8, AAPA discloses “determining, by the processor, the HDMI standard corresponding to the input data is a first HDMI standard in an event that” detected data is 0101010; “and determining, by the processor, the HDMI standard corresponding to the input data is a second HDMI standard in an event that” detected data is 0000111100001111 ([0005] of Applicant’s PGPub 2025/0203146 HDMI sink receiving an HDMI signal and detecting the data using an HDMI 2.0 clock rate. Further, “when the sink device detects the data pattern is "0101010 ... " pattern, the sink device may determine that the data is a HDMI 2.0 data. Conversely, when the sink device detects the data pattern is "00001111100001111 ... ", the sink device may determine that the data is an HDMI 1 .4 signal”).
AAPA does not appear to explicitly disclose “determining, by the processor, the HDMI standard corresponding to the input data is a first HDMI standard in an event that the total match count corresponding to the comparison result is less than the threshold; and determining, by the processor, the HDMI standard corresponding to the input data is a second HDMI standard in an event that the total match count corresponding to the comparison result is not less than the threshold.”
However, LeFever discloses “determining, by the processor,” that the input data was properly received “in an event that the total match count corresponding to the comparison result is less than the threshold” and “determining, by the processor,” that the input data was not properly received “in an event that the total match count corresponding to the comparison result is not less than the threshold” (column 7 line 32 – 57 “values corresponding to the successive ones and zeroes of a PN sequence to be correlated with the received symbol samples through the action of accumulators,” contents of accumulators are coupled to buffers and on “to processor 41 where they are squared, the square values summed, and the resulting sum compared with a threshold. If the threshold is exceeded a correlation peak is identified and thereby the location of the known symbol sequence within the frame is detected”).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of LeFever with AAPA so that the detecting of the known symbol sequence (as in LeFever) is used for determining the HDMI standard corresponding to the input data (as in AAPA).
AAPA and LeFever are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is configuration of an interface.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of AAPA and LeFever before him or her, to modify the teachings of AAPA to include the teachings of LeFever so that a sliding window is used to compare each received data set to a predefined reference pattern while using a threshold.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means for a receiver/sink to synchronize itself to received data signals (as stated by LeFever at column 1 lines 9 – 14). Further, a threshold is known to minimize the effect of outlier data bits.
As above, AAPA and LeFever are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is configuration of an interface. Also, both LeFever and Sun deal with pattern detection methods and comparing received data to a known pattern.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of AAPA, LeFever, and Sun before him or her, to modify the teachings of AAPA and LeFever to include the teachings of Sun so that a match count is incremented in an event that the first subset matches the predefined reference pattern, the maximum of a match count being 1.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means for marking and notifying of a found match.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sun with AAPA and LeFever to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Referring to claim 9, claim 1 recites the corresponding limitations as that of claim 9. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies to claim 9.
Note, claim 10 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 2. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 applies to claim 10.
Note, claim 11 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 3. Therefore, the rejection of claim 3 applies to claim 11.
Note, claim 12 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 4. Therefore, the rejection of claim 4 applies to claim 12.
Note, claim 14 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 6. Therefore, the rejection of claim 6 applies to claim 14.
Note, claim 15 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 7. Therefore, the rejection of claim 7 applies to claim 15.
Note, claim 16 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 8. Therefore, the rejection of claim 8 applies to claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 13, that
“However, Lefever fails to disclose that the known reference symbol sequence may be compared with the subset of each frame to calculate a match count, and then the HDMI standard may be determined based on the total match count. That is, Lefever appears not to explicitly disclose the features "comparing a first subset of a first data set of the plurality of data sets to the predefined reference pattern, wherein a length of the first subset is the same as the predefined reference pattern; incrementing a match count corresponding to the first data set by 1 in an event that the first subset matches the predefined reference pattern; and moving the slide window to a next subset of the first data set to compare the next subset to the predefined reference pattern" as recited in amended Claim 1.”
“Applicant respectfully submits that LeFever does not disclose any features or operations about determining whether the subset matches the predefined reference pattern as disclosed in the present application”
The examiner disagrees. Firstly, a sliding window approach is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to include “comparing a first subset of a first data set of the plurality of data sets to the predefined reference pattern” and “and moving the slide window to a next subset of the first data set to compare the next subset to the predefined reference pattern.” Second, LeFever teaches “a length of the first subset is the same as the predefined reference pattern” (Fig. 4 and column 7 lines 36 – 40 a PN sequence of 172 to be correlated with the received symbol samples and column 7 lines 58 – 65 frame symbol samples received each 172 symbol samples).
Also, as in the previous Office Action (claim 5), Sun is cited as teaching “incrementing a match count corresponding to the first data set by 1 in an event that the first subset matches the predefined reference pattern.” Applicant does not address Sun in their arguments. Therefore, an argument to LeFever not teaching this limitation is moot.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN G SNYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm (flexible).
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, Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/STEVEN G SNYDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184
