DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication filed on 4/13/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 16 are pending, of which claims 1 and 9 are in independent form.
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, 8 – 12, and 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).
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”).
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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine LeFever with AAPA 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 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine LeFever with AAPA 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 16 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 8. Therefore, the rejection of claim 8 applies to claim 16.
Claims 5 – 7 and 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of LeFever, as applied to claims above, further in view of Sun et al., U.S. Patent Application 2008/0030894 (hereinafter referred to as Sun).
As per claim 5, 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”); “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).
LeFever 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 “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 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.
Note, claim 13 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 5. Therefore, the rejection of claim 5 applies to claim 13.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 12, that LeFever is not related to HDMI technology.
The examiner finds this argument to be not persuasive. LeFever is cited for teachings of configuration of an interface. As in the previous Office Action, LeFever teaches comparing received data to a reference pattern using a sliding window approach. LeFever teaches that this provides a means for synchronizing a receiver to its received data signals. The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try this approach in an HDMI system.
Applicant argues, on page 13, that LeFever does not teach comparing the known reference symbol sequence with each frame to calculate a match count. Applicant also argues that LeFever does not disclose any features or operations about the slide window.
The examiner disagrees. As in the Office Action, LeFever teaches every one of the sample positions will have been checked for correlation with the known reference symbol sequence. Fig. 4 teaches using 2561 symbol sample times.
LeFever’s column 8 lines 35 – 54 teaches
"To provide a sufficient signal processing time window for this purpose a processing interval of 25 symbol samples from sample time t112 to sample time t197 may be provided. Thus a correlation processing subframe occurs over an interval of 197 samples. This numerical value has been chosen simply for purposes of convenience and mathematical efficiency in terms of the sample span of a frame. It is noted that an integral number (here 13) times the number of processing subframes covers 2561 samples. Therefore, 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 everyone of the 2560 sample positions will have been checked for correlation with the known reference symbol sequence. This means that, for the present example, in a worst case situation, the time required for correlation detector 35 to locate the known reference symbol sequence will be 197 frames"
As such, the examiner maintains that LeFever teaches a sliding window approach to checking “for correlation with the known reference symbol sequence.”
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chun et al., ‘Robust Sliding Window Synchronizer Developed’ Publication Date May 1, 2004.
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
Prosecution Insights