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 .
The effective prior-art date used for this analysis is May 25, 2022. The references applied below are: WO 2021/244218 A1 to Huang Qufang et al., assigned to Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (published December 9, 2021) (“Huang et al.”); CN 114024914 A to Jiang Zhao et al., originally assigned to Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (published February 8, 2022) (“Jiang et al.”); and
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.
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.
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 1-7, 11-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (WO 2021/244218 A1) in view of Jiang (CN 114024914 A).
Regarding claim 1, Huang et al. discloses determining, by a communication device, at least one first packet in a first duration, wherein the at least one first packet belongs to a protocol data unit (PDU) set, because Huang et al. receives N packets belonging to the same video frame, identifies the first packet by a frame-start indication, receives the remaining packets during a preset duration, and treats the frame as one packet group. Huang et al. further discloses that the first duration is determined based on a burst duration because its spread-delay budget is the permitted interval from the first packet to the last packet of the video frame, i.e., the duration of the packet burst, and Huang et al. discloses sending the packet group when the preset time expires or all packets of the frame have been received. Huang et al., description of Figs. 4-10; claims 1-10; discussion of the spread-delay budget, first-packet indication, preset time, and uniform delivery of N packets. Jiang et al. additionally discloses splitting each video frame into numbered packets, determining a per-frame transmission-time threshold from the video frame rate, starting timing with the first packet, and sending the frame packets within that threshold. Jiang et al., Fig. 1, steps S100-S130 and accompanying description. Huang et al. therefore discloses the recited PDU-set and burst-duration alternative, while Jiang et al. confirms the known use of a frame-derived duration to control packet transmission.
Regarding claim 2, Huang et al. discloses determining, by the communication device, the at least one first packet during a running of a first timer, wherein a running duration of the first timer is less than or equal to the first duration. Huang et al. expressly states that the preset-time collection procedure may be implemented by a timer, that packets received during the preset time belong to the same frame as the first packet, and that the preset time may be less than or equal to the extended delay budget. Huang et al., description of Figs. 4, 9, and 10; discussion of implementing the preset time by a timer and setting the preset time no greater than the extended delay budget. Jiang et al. also starts timing when the first packet of a video frame is sent or received and limits the frame transmission to the frame threshold. Jiang et al., Fig. 1 and accompanying description of the first-packet timing operation.
Regarding claim 3, Huang et al. discloses that the at least one first packet belongs to a first PDU set and that a sequence number of the first PDU set is a first value because Huang et al. groups packets of one video frame and uses frame indication information and PDCP sequence numbers to identify and determine completeness of the frame. Huang et al. discloses starting the first timer when the communication device obtains an earliest packet in the first PDU set or obtains a first start marker indicating that packet collection for the first PDU set is to begin. Specifically, Huang et al. identifies a first packet by a frame-start indication carried in the packet or sent separately and starts the timer when the gNB receives that first packet. Huang et al., description of Figs. 4-7 and 9; claims 4-8; discussion of first-packet indications and starting the timer upon receipt of the first packet. Jiang et al. additionally discloses frame identifiers and packet numbers in the packet headers. Jiang et al., step S110 and accompanying description. It would have been obvious to express Huang et al.’s frame identity as a sequence-number value because Huang et al. already uses PDCP SNs and Jiang et al. uses ordered packet identifiers, and doing so predictably distinguishes adjacent packet groups.
Regarding claim 4, Huang et al. discloses stopping the first timer when a second condition is met, where the second condition is expiration of the running timer or receipt of a first end marker indicating that the communication device is to stop obtaining packets in the first PDU set. Huang et al. delivers the N packets when the preset timer expires or when all packets of the frame are received, and identifies completion from a tail packet carrying a frame-end or tail-packet indication, which may alternatively be sent separately. Huang et al., description of Fig. 9; claims 4-8; discussion of timer expiration, tail packets, and frame-end indications. The two disclosed alternatives map directly to the two recited second conditions.
Regarding claim 5, Huang et al. discloses sending, by the communication device, the at least one first packet when the first timer stops running. Huang et al. uniformly delivers the collected N packets to the upper layer when the preset time expires and also permits delivery when all packets of the frame are received before expiration. Huang et al., description of Figs. 9-10 and the uniform-delivery embodiment. Because claim 5 requires sending when the first timer stops, Huang et al.’s delivery upon timer expiration directly discloses the recited operation.
Regarding claim 6, Huang et al. discloses determining the first duration from a frame timing budget but does not expressly disclose that the first duration equals a difference between the first interval and a first adjustment factor or a sum of the first interval and a first adjustment factor. Jiang et al. discloses a first interval of 1/fps derived from the video frame rate and expressly discloses setting the transmission-time threshold to 0.9 x 1/fps. Jiang et al., description of Fig. 1 following steps S120-S130. The disclosed value is I - 0.1I, where I is the frame interval and 0.1I is an adjustment factor, and thus directly discloses the claimed difference alternative. It would have been obvious to use Jiang et al.’s adjusted frame interval as Huang et al.’s collection duration because both references limit packet handling to a frame-based latency budget, and the adjustment predictably reserves time for subsequent network and decoding operations.
Regarding claim 7, Huang et al. discloses repeatedly determining and sending packets belonging to adjacent first and second video-frame PDU sets, but Huang et al. does not expressly disclose a separate second timer having a running duration less than or equal to the first interval. Kang et al. discloses a first plurality of SDUs associated with one or more higher-layer PDUs, a first SDU and a second SDU received a duration apart, a first discard timer initiated upon receipt of the first SDU, and a second discard timer initiated upon receipt of the second SDU, with the second value equal to the first value minus the elapsed duration. Kang et al., claims 1-6; Fig. 7; description of blocks 720-780. Kang et al. therefore discloses determining packets during respective first and second group timers and constraining the second timer to the remaining interval. It would have been obvious to apply Kang et al.’s separate timer to Huang et al.’s second frame because both references manage successive packet groups under a common latency requirement, and a separate remaining-duration timer predictably prevents the second group from exceeding the interval.
Regarding claim 11, Huang et al. discloses determining, by a communication device, at least one packet belonging to a PDU set and sending the packet. Huang et al. groups N packets of the same video frame using first-packet, tail-packet, or common-frame indications and delivers the collected packets together. Huang et al. further discloses that the interval between moments corresponding to two adjacent packets in the set is less than or equal to a first interval because packets collected from the first packet through the last packet are constrained by the preset time or spread-delay budget. Huang et al., claims 1-10; description of Figs. 4-10. Jiang et al. additionally discloses numbered packets of a single video frame transmitted within a per-frame threshold. Jiang et al., steps S100-S130. These disclosures directly map the packet group, adjacent-packet interval, and sending operations.
Regarding claim 12, Huang et al. discloses that the first interval is a time interval at which the communication device obtains two adjacent packets in the same PDU set in the time domain. Huang et al. receives the first packet of a video frame and other packets of that same frame during the preset collection time and defines the spread-delay budget from the first packet to the last packet. Huang et al., description of the preset-duration embodiment and the spread-delay-budget definition. Jiang et al. likewise numbers packets belonging to the same frame and measures the frame transmission time from the first packet. Jiang et al., steps S110-S130 and accompanying description.
Regarding claim 13, Huang et al. discloses starting, by the communication device, a first timer when the communication device obtains a first packet, wherein the at least one packet includes that first packet, and sending the first packet when the first timer stops running, with the timer duration less than or equal to the first interval. Huang et al. starts a timer when the gNB receives the first packet of a video frame, receives the other packets during the preset time, sets that time no greater than the extended delay budget, and uniformly delivers the collected packets when the timer expires. Huang et al., description of Figs. 4, 9, and 10. Jiang et al. independently confirms starting frame timing at the first packet. Jiang et al., description following step S130.
Regarding claim 14, Huang et al. discloses stopping the first timer when the communication device obtains an end marker that indicates stopping collection of packets belonging to the PDU set of the first packet. Huang et al. identifies a tail packet by a video-frame-end indication or a tail-packet indication, permits the indication to be carried in the tail packet or sent separately, and treats receipt of the tail indication as completion of the frame for uniform delivery. Huang et al., claims 7-8; description of the frame-end and tail-packet embodiments. This is the recited end-marker operation.
Regarding claim 15, Huang et al. discloses starting a first timer with receipt of the first packet and sending the collected first packet when that timer stops, but Huang et al. does not expressly disclose starting a second timer when the first timer stops and withholding the first packet until both timers stop. Kang et al. discloses configuring multiple group discard timers, relationships between received SDUs and those timers, respective timer durations, and actions upon expiration, including first and second timers associated with packets of the same group. Kang et al., claims 3-7 and 13-16; description of the group-discard-timer configuration. It would have been obvious to sequence Kang et al.’s second timer after Huang et al.’s collection timer as a post-collection guard interval because the combination merely applies two known timing stages in their ordinary order: first collect the PDU set, then wait a bounded additional interval before delivery. The modification predictably provides a configurable opportunity for a late packet while preserving the common maximum-latency requirement.
Regarding claim 20, Huang et al. discloses a communication apparatus comprising at least one processor coupled to a memory storing program instructions that, when executed, perform Huang et al.’s packet-group determination, timer-controlled collection, and sending operations. Huang et al., claims 11-14 and concluding apparatus and computer-readable-medium embodiments. Huang et al. further discloses determining first packets belonging to a frame PDU set during a duration based on the frame burst or spread-delay budget and sending the collected packets at expiration or completion, as mapped for claim 1. Jiang et al. additionally discloses an electronic device having a processor and machine-readable storage medium executing the frame-packet transmission method. Jiang et al., apparatus and electronic-device embodiments. The applied combination therefore discloses the processor, memory, stored instructions, and all recited operations.
Claims 8-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Jiang et al. and Kang et al., and further in view of Meylan ( US 2009/0003283 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Huang et al. and Kang et al. disclose starting, by the communication device, the second timer when a third condition is met. Huang et al. discloses a start marker that identifies the first packet of each succeeding video frame and begins collection of that frame, while Kang et al. starts its second timer upon receipt of the second SDU. Huang et al., description of Figs. 4-7 and the embodiment in which the first packet of the i+1 frame marks the next frame; Kang et al., claims 3 and 6. Applied to Huang et al.’s second frame, receipt of the second start marker is receipt of the packet that begins the second PDU set and triggers Kang et al.’s second timer. It would have been obvious to use the expressly disclosed start indication as the timer trigger because that indication unambiguously identifies when collection of the second group begins.
Regarding claim 9, Kang et al. discloses stopping the second timer when the running of the second timer expires. Kang et al., claim 6 and description of expiration of the second discard timer. Huang et al. discloses the alternative condition in which receipt of a second end marker identifies the tail packet and causes the communication device to stop obtaining packets for that frame and deliver the completed group. Huang et al., claims 7-8; description of the tail-packet and frame-end-indication embodiments. It would have been obvious to terminate Kang et al.’s second-group timing at the earlier of timer expiration or Huang et al.’s explicit end marker because those are known, predictable indications that the group collection window has ended.
Regarding claim 10, Huang et al., Jiang et al., and Kang et al. disclose ordered first and second packet groups and the use of frame identifiers or common sequence numbers, but do not expressly disclose determining a sequence number of the second PDU set based on the sequence number of the first PDU set. Meylan discloses assigning sequentially increasing sequence numbers to PDUs and determining the sequence number of a later SDU or PDU from the sequence number of a preceding SDU or PDU and an offset or delta. Meylan, paragraphs corresponding to Figs. 8-12; claims 23-26, including determination of a second sequence number based on a first sequence number and a delta. It would have been obvious to use Meylan’s sequential derivation for Huang et al.’s adjacent frame groups because it predictably preserves ordering while avoiding transmission or storage of a complete independent identifier for every successive group.
Regarding claim 16, Huang et al. discloses sending the first packet together with other packets determined during a collection timer when the timer stops, and Kang et al. discloses that a first and second SDU received at different moments may be associated with the same group timer and the same higher-layer PDU or common data flow. Huang et al., uniform-delivery embodiment of Figs. 9-10; Kang et al., claims 1-7. Huang et al. and Kang et al. therefore disclose determining a second packet while the group timing is running, treating the first and second packets as belonging to the same PDU set, and sending or otherwise acting on the packets together when group timing ends. In the claim 15 combination, both packets would predictably be released when the collection timer and post-collection timer have stopped so that the complete available group is transmitted together.
Regarding claim 17, Kang et al. discloses stopping the second timer when its configured duration expires and permits one or more configured timer durations and relationships between timer expiration and the group action. Kang et al., claims 6, 13-16. Huang et al. discloses the alternative end-marker condition by stopping collection when a frame-end or tail-packet indication is obtained. Huang et al., claims 7-8 and the tail-packet embodiments. Huang et al. and Kang et al. therefore disclose at least the recited preset-duration and end-marker alternatives. It would have been obvious to select the timer duration from the known frame interval, a preset duration, or an observed jitter allowance because each is a conventional bound on the same packet-group waiting period and the selection would predictably trade completeness against latency.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Kang et al. and Liu et al. (WO 2018/191916 A1 to Haiqin Liu et al., assigned to Qualcomm Incorporated (published October 25, 2018)).
Regarding claim 18, Huang et al. discloses starting a first timer upon the first packet and sending the first packet together with later packets of the same frame when the timer stops, but Huang et al. does not expressly disclose restarting that same timer when a third packet of the PDU set is determined. Liu et al. discloses a UE that starts an SR delay timer when a first set of uplink information becomes available, receives additional uplink information while the timer is running, and restarts the originally started timer in response to the additional data; after the restarted timer expires, the UE requests resources to transmit the information stored in the uplink buffer. Liu et al., Fig. 5 and accompanying description of times t0-t3, including restart at t1 upon the second set of information. It would have been obvious to apply Liu et al.’s restart rule to Huang et al.’s packet collector because restarting the timer when an additional same-frame packet arrives predictably gives the group a full bounded collection interval from the latest arrival, after which Huang et al. sends the first and additional packets together.
Regarding claim 19, Huang et al. and Liu et al. disclose restarting the first timer upon additional data and sending the accumulated packet group after the restarted timer stops, but do not expressly disclose starting a third timer when the restarted first timer stops and waiting until both timers stop before sending. Kang et al. discloses a configurable number of group timers, separate first and second timer values, relationships between received packets and the timers, and expiration-based group actions. Kang et al., claims 3-7 and 13-16. It would have been obvious to use another one of Kang et al.’s configured group timers as a final guard timer after Liu et al.’s restarted collection timer because the arrangement is a predictable cascade of known timers that preserves a final bounded opportunity for completion before releasing the packet group. The first and third packets accumulated under Huang et al. and Liu et al. would then be sent when the restarted collection timer and the final guard timer have both stopped.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights