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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 12/13/2024 and 09/23/2025 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, 12-13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monden et al. (US 2008/0019289 A1, hereinafter Monden), in view of, Zriny et al. (US 2007/0140151 A1, hereinafter Zriny).
Regarding claim 1, Monden discloses an electronic device (see e.g., Fig. 1, wireless terminal 1) comprising:
a communication circuit (see e.g., “The wireless LAN I/F 703 is coupled to an antenna 704. The wireless LAN I/F 703 and the antenna 704 allow the wireless terminal 700 to send or receive a packet”, Fig. 7, [0032]); and
at least one processor operably connected to the communication circuit (see e.g., “The wireless terminal 700 includes a processor (CPU) 701, a memory 702, and a wireless communication interface (wireless LAN I/F) 703”, Fig. 7, [0032]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
establish, via the communication circuit, a communication link with at least one external electronic device (see e.g., “wireless terminals 1 to 3 can communicate with one another”, Fig. 1, [0031] and/or “enabling the link when the link quality value is higher than a set threshold, disabling the link when the link quality value is lower than another threshold, receiving the routing packet to pass it on to the routing protocol only when the link is enabled”, [0016]),
identify quality of the communication link, based on the quality of the communication link being less than threshold quality (see e.g., “determining a link quality value depending on an evaluation value of the communication quality obtained in this manner”, [0016] and/or “When the reception radio wave intensity is lower than a lower threshold 403, the link quality is set to the minimum value”, Fig. 4, [0049]),
discard at least one of packets to be transmitted during a set time period in the communication link (see e.g., “At time t4, the radio wave intensity 408 is lower than the lower threshold, so the link quality is decreased to the minimum value, 0. At this time, the link quality is lower than the lower threshold, so the link enable flag is cleared and a routing packet is discarded”, Fig. 5, [0051]), transmit, to the at least one external electronic device, via the communication circuit, a packet indicating that the at least one of the packets is discarded.
Monden fails to explicitly disclose transmit to the at least one external electronic device, via the communication circuit, a packet indicating that the at least one of the packets is discarded.
In the same field of endeavor, Zriny discloses, transmit, to the at least one external electronic device, via the communication circuit, a packet indicating that the at least one of the packets is discarded (see e.g., “the destination device receives a notification packet, indicating that a packet in the stream has been discarded.”, Fig. 7, [0045] and/or “if actual or expected congestion is detected, one or more candidate packets for discard are identified in state 62 (and control returns back to state 60). When an identified packet reaches the output of the FIFO memory 50, a small notification packet is sent to the destination device 12 in state 64 (and control returns back to state 60)”, Fig. 5, [0038] and/or “…use this bit to specify whether the payload has been discarded. To do so, the discarding network element would set the F-bit of a discarded packet to a "1" and clear out the payload before transmitting the packet.”, Fig. 6, [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Monden with Zriny, in order to save bandwidth by sending a small notification packet indicating that the payload was removed and destination device may initiate error correction tasks as soon as the small notification packet is received (please see Zriny, [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Monden and Zriny combined disclose, based on the quality of the communication link being less than the threshold quality, adjust a flush point (see Monden e.g., “At time t4, the radio wave intensity 408 is lower than the lower threshold, so the link quality is decreased to the minimum value, 0”, [0051]), and wherein the flush point is a time point at which the at least one of the packets to be transmitted during the set time period are set to be discarded (see Monden e.g., “At time t4, the radio wave intensity 408 is lower than the lower threshold, so the link quality is decreased to the minimum value, 0. At this time, the link quality is lower than the lower threshold, so the link enable flag is cleared and a routing packet is discarded”, [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Monden discloses an electronic device (see e.g., Fig. 1, wireless terminal 2 or 3) comprising:
a communication circuit (see e.g., “The wireless LAN I/F 703 is coupled to an antenna 704. The wireless LAN I/F 703 and the antenna 704 allow the wireless terminal 700 to send or receive a packet”, Fig. 7, [0032]); and
at least one processor operably connected to the communication circuit (see e.g., “The wireless terminal 700 includes a processor (CPU) 701, a memory 702, and a wireless communication interface (wireless LAN I/F) 703”, Fig. 7, [0032]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
establish, via the communication circuit, a communication link with at least one external electronic device (see e.g., “wireless terminals 1 to 3 can communicate with one another”, Fig. 1, [0031] and/or “enabling the link when the link quality value is higher than a set threshold, disabling the link when the link quality value is lower than another threshold, receiving the routing packet to pass it on to the routing protocol only when the link is enabled”, [0016]),
receive, from the external electronic device, via the communication circuit, at least one packet during a set time period in the communication link (see e.g., “enabling the link when the link quality value is higher than a set threshold, disabling the link when the link quality value is lower than another threshold, receiving the routing packet to pass it on to the routing protocol only when the link is enabled, and discarding the routing packet when the link is disabled”, [0016] and/or “ The wireless LAN I/F 703 and the antenna 704 allow the wireless terminal 700 to send or receive a packet.”, [0032]),
Monden fails to explicitly disclose, identify whether an indication packet indicating that one packet is discarded is included in the received at least one packet, and based on the indication packet indicating that the one packet is discarded being included in the received at least one packet, perform a recovery operation on a packet corresponding to the indication packet indicating that the one packet is discarded.
In the same field of endeavor, Zriny discloses, identify whether an indication packet indicating that one packet is discarded is included in the received at least one packet (see e.g., “the destination device receives a notification packet, indicating that a packet in the stream has been discarded.”, Fig. 7, [0045] and/or “if actual or expected congestion is detected, one or more candidate packets for discard are identified in state 62 (and control returns back to state 60). When an identified packet reaches the output of the FIFO memory 50, a small notification packet is sent to the destination device 12 in state 64 (and control returns back to state 60)”, Fig. 5, [0038] and/or “…use this bit to specify whether the payload has been discarded. To do so, the discarding network element would set the F-bit of a discarded packet to a "1" and clear out the payload before transmitting the packet.”, Fig. 6, [0040]), and
based on the indication packet indicating that the one packet is discarded being included in the received at least one packet, perform a recovery operation on a packet corresponding to the indication packet indicating that the one packet is discarded (see e.g., “Once a packet is declared as lost, the destination device attempts to recover either by retransmission or by error concealment techniques”, [0007] and/or “If, at the destination device, a numbered packet does not arrive in sequence, a lost packet condition is declared and error recovery mechanisms can start”, [0008] and/or “FIG. 4b illustrates the replacement of discarded packets with smaller notification packets. At the input 52, intermediary network element 14 receives five packets A-F, and detects a congestion situation. Packets B, C and E are considered lower priority packets and are marked for discard. At the output, much smaller notification packets B', C' and D' are transmitted towards the destination device 12”, [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Monden with Zriny, in order to save bandwidth by sending a small notification packet indicating that the payload was removed and destination device may initiate error correction tasks as soon as the small notification packet is received (please see Zriny, [0012]).
Regarding claim 12, Monden discloses, an operating method of an electronic device (see e.g., Fig. 1, wireless terminal 1), the operating method comprising:
establishing a communication link with at least one external electronic device (see e.g., “wireless terminals 1 to 3 can communicate with one another”, Fig. 1, [0031] and/or “enabling the link when the link quality value is higher than a set threshold, disabling the link when the link quality value is lower than another threshold, receiving the routing packet to pass it on to the routing protocol only when the link is enabled”, [0016]);
identifying quality of the communication link (see e.g., “determining a link quality value depending on an evaluation value of the communication quality obtained in this manner”, [0016] and/or “When the reception radio wave intensity is lower than a lower threshold 403, the link quality is set to the minimum value”, Fig. 4, [0049]);
based on the quality of the communication link being less than threshold quality, discarding at least one of packets to be transmitted during a set time period in the communication link (see e.g., “At time t4, the radio wave intensity 408 is lower than the lower threshold, so the link quality is decreased to the minimum value, 0. At this time, the link quality is lower than the lower threshold, so the link enable flag is cleared and a routing packet is discarded”, Fig. 5, [0051]), transmit, to the at least one external electronic device, via the communication circuit, a packet indicating that the at least one of the packets is discarded.
Monden fails to explicitly disclose, transmitting, to the at least one external electronic device, a packet indicating that the at least one of the packets is discarded
In the same field of endeavor, Zriny discloses, transmitting, to the at least one external electronic device, a packet indicating that the at least one of the packets is discarded (see e.g., “the destination device receives a notification packet, indicating that a packet in the stream has been discarded.”, Fig. 7, [0045] and/or “if actual or expected congestion is detected, one or more candidate packets for discard are identified in state 62 (and control returns back to state 60). When an identified packet reaches the output of the FIFO memory 50, a small notification packet is sent to the destination device 12 in state 64 (and control returns back to state 60)”, Fig. 5, [0038] and/or “…use this bit to specify whether the payload has been discarded. To do so, the discarding network element would set the F-bit of a discarded packet to a "1" and clear out the payload before transmitting the packet.”, Fig. 6, [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Monden with Zriny, in order to save bandwidth by sending a small notification packet indicating that the payload was removed and destination device may initiate error correction tasks as soon as the small notification packet is received (please see Zriny, [0012]).
Regarding claim 13, Monden and Zriny combined disclose, based on the quality of the communication link being less than the threshold quality, adjusting flush points which are time points at which the packets to be transmitted during the set time period are set to be discarded (see Monden e.g., “At time t4, the radio wave intensity 408 is lower than the lower threshold, so the link quality is decreased to the minimum value, 0”, [0051]), and wherein the flush point is a time point at which the at least one of the packets to be transmitted during the set time period are set to be discarded (see Monden e.g., “At time t4, the radio wave intensity 408 is lower than the lower threshold, so the link quality is decreased to the minimum value, 0. At this time, the link quality is lower than the lower threshold, so the link enable flag is cleared and a routing packet is discarded”, [0051]).
Regarding claim 16, Monden and Zriny combined disclose, wherein the packet indicating that at least one of the packets is discarded includes an empty packet, a null packet, or a special packet (see Zriny e.g., “Upon reception, if the application at the destination device 12 detects that the F-bit is "0", the receiver processes the packet as normal. If the F-bit is "1" and the payload is empty, the application initiates error concealment procedures or other error handling functions”, [0041] and/or “for marking packets with discarded payloads, using the packet structure of FIG. 6, instead of setting the F-bit to "0", would be to set the byte following the NAL to null (zero) indicating that the application payload has been removed. In this case the video source (encoder/server) would guarantee that the byte following the NAL would always be non-zero when the packet was transmitted toward the network. The receiver, detecting a null in the first byte following the NAL, would be informed of the removed payload.”, [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Monden with Zriny, in order to save bandwidth by sending a small notification packet indicating that the payload was removed and destination device may initiate error correction tasks as soon as the small notification packet is received (please see Zriny, [0012]).
Regarding claim 20, Monden and Zriny combined disclose, wherein the packet indicating that at least one of the packets is discarded includes an empty packet, a null packet, or a special packet (see Zriny e.g., “Upon reception, if the application at the destination device 12 detects that the F-bit is "0", the receiver processes the packet as normal. If the F-bit is "1" and the payload is empty, the application initiates error concealment procedures or other error handling functions”, [0041] and/or “for marking packets with discarded payloads, using the packet structure of FIG. 6, instead of setting the F-bit to "0", would be to set the byte following the NAL to null (zero) indicating that the application payload has been removed. In this case the video source (encoder/server) would guarantee that the byte following the NAL would always be non-zero when the packet was transmitted toward the network. The receiver, detecting a null in the first byte following the NAL, would be informed of the removed payload.”, [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Monden with Zriny, in order to save bandwidth by sending a small notification packet indicating that the payload was removed and destination device may initiate error correction tasks as soon as the small notification packet is received (please see Zriny, [0012]).
Claims 4, 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monden, in view of, Zriny and further in view of Young et al. (US 2021/0306103 A1, hereinafter Young).
Regarding claim 4, Monden and Zriny combined fail to explicitly disclose, transmit, to the at least one external electronic device, via the communication circuit, packets during another set time period preceding the set time period in a time domain, receive, from the at least one external electronic device, via the communication circuit, during the other set time period, at least one response packet for the packets transmitted during the other set time period, and based on the at least one response packet, identify the quality of the communication link.
In the same field of endeavor, Young discloses, transmit, to the at least one external electronic device, via the communication circuit, packets during another set time period preceding the set time period in a time domain (see e.g., “receiving, via first circuitry 120 of a first audio device 104, at least a portion of an isochronous data stream 118 from a source device 102, the isochronous data stream 118 including a first audio stream 146A associated with the first audio device 104”, [0084] and/or “isochronous audio data stream 118 includes a second repeat subinterval 158 arranged after the second subinterval 156 and before marginal subinterval 160”, [0060],
receive, from the at least one external electronic device, via the communication circuit, during the other set time period, at least one response packet for the packets transmitted during the other set time period (see e.g., “link quality LQ can be determined a based on number of acknowledgements 162 (discussed below) or negative acknowledgments 164 (discussed below) received within a predetermined amount of time”, [0053]), and
based on the at least one response packet, identify the quality of the communication link (see e.g., “link quality LQ can be determined a based on number of acknowledgements 162 (discussed below) or negative acknowledgments 164 (discussed below) received within a predetermined amount of time”, [0053]) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Monden and Zriny with Young, in order to prevent low quality data link between the source device and second device leading to unacceptable data losses (please see Young, [0002]).
Regarding claim 6, Monden, Zriny and Young combine discloses, based on a set discard ratio, discard at least one of the packets to be transmitted during the set time period (see e.g., “link quality LQ can be derived from an exchange of statistical link information between the devices of audio system 100, e.g., the number of channels within the negotiated or agreed upon channel map that have been blacklisted for a certain connection or link, the retransmit count of the number of retransmission packets sent between any two devices in audio system 100, the amount of negative acknowledgements (e.g., the number of packets that had but errors), and the number of missed events (e.g., the number of packets not received to an inability to lock or use the access codes discussed above)”, [0076]), and wherein the set discard ratio comprises a ratio of a number of acknowledgement (ACK) packets received for a set number of packets among the packets to be transmitted during the set time period to a packet indicating that the at least one of the packets is discarded (see e.g., “link quality LQ can be derived from an exchange of statistical link information between the devices of audio system 100, e.g., the number of channels within the negotiated or agreed upon channel map that have been blacklisted for a certain connection or link, the retransmit count of the number of retransmission packets sent between any two devices in audio system 100, the amount of negative acknowledgements (e.g., the number of packets that had but errors), and the number of missed events (e.g., the number of packets not received to an inability to lock or use the access codes discussed above)”, [0076]: Examiner’s note: design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Monden and Zriny with Young, in order to prevent low quality data link between the source device and second device leading to unacceptable data losses (please see Young, [0002]).
Regarding claim 18, Monden, Zriny combine fail to explicitly disclose, based on a set discard ratio, discarding the at least one of the packets to be transmitted during the set time period, and wherein the set discard ratio comprises a ratio of a number of acknowledgement (ACK) packets received for a set number of packets among the packets to be transmitted during the set time period to a packet indicating that the at least one of the packets is discarded.
In the same field of endeavor, Young discloses, based on a set discard ratio, discarding the at least one of the packets to be transmitted during the set time period (see e.g., “link quality LQ can be derived from an exchange of statistical link information between the devices of audio system 100, e.g., the number of channels within the negotiated or agreed upon channel map that have been blacklisted for a certain connection or link, the retransmit count of the number of retransmission packets sent between any two devices in audio system 100, the amount of negative acknowledgements (e.g., the number of packets that had but errors), and the number of missed events (e.g., the number of packets not received to an inability to lock or use the access codes discussed above)”, [0076]), wherein the set discard ratio comprises a ratio of a number of acknowledgement (ACK) packets received for a set number of packets among the packets to be transmitted during the set time period to a packet indicating that the at least one of the packets is discarded (see e.g., “link quality LQ can be derived from an exchange of statistical link information between the devices of audio system 100, e.g., the number of channels within the negotiated or agreed upon channel map that have been blacklisted for a certain connection or link, the retransmit count of the number of retransmission packets sent between any two devices in audio system 100, the amount of negative acknowledgements (e.g., the number of packets that had but errors), and the number of missed events (e.g., the number of packets not received to an inability to lock or use the access codes discussed above)”, [0076]: Examiner’s note: design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Monden and Zriny with Young, in order to prevent low quality data link between the source device and second device leading to unacceptable data losses (please see Young, [0002]).
er threshold, so the link enable flag is cleared and a routing packet is discarded”, [0051]).
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monden, in view of, Zriny and further in view of SUGAYA et al. (US 2021/0014169 A1, hereinafter Sugaya).
Regarding claim 7, Monden and Zriny combined fail to explicitly disclose, transmit, to the at least one external electronic device, via the communication circuit, a packet comprising information associated with the adjusted flush point.
In the same field of endeavor, Sugaya discloses, transmit, to the at least one external electronic device, via the communication circuit, a packet comprising information associated with the adjusted flush point (see e.g., “when a transmission-side communication device is operating as an access point that transmits a predetermined beacon signal, number information (hereinafter, also referred to as “flush information”) is added to the beacon signal, and a reception-side communication device is notified of the flush information at a predetermined cycle by the beacon signal.”, [0083],
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Monden and Zriny with Sugaya, in order to delete data related to the sequence of the multicast communication from the buffer by device (please see Sugaya, [0100]).
Regarding claim 19, Monden and Zriny combined fail to explicitly disclose, transmitting, to the at least one external electronic device, a packet comprising information associated with the adjusted flush point
In the same field of endeavor, Sugaya discloses, transmitting, to the at least one external electronic device, a packet comprising information associated with the adjusted flush point (see e.g., “when a transmission-side communication device is operating as an access point that transmits a predetermined beacon signal, number information (hereinafter, also referred to as “flush information”) is added to the beacon signal, and a reception-side communication device is notified of the flush information at a predetermined cycle by the beacon signal.”, [0083],
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Monden and Zriny with Sugaya, in order to delete data related to the sequence of the multicast communication from the buffer by device (please see Sugaya, [0100]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 9, 14 and 17 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.
As to claim 3, the prior arts fail to teach, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, discard the at least one of the packets at a time point preceding the flush point, and wherein the at least one of the packets is set to be discarded at the time point preceding the flush point in a time domain.
As to claim 5, the prior arts fail to teach, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
based on a maximum number of sub-events in at least one connected isochronous stream (CIS) event in the set time period and a number of new data packets to be transmitted within a time interval in which a CIS event occurs, adjust the flush point for the packets to be transmitted during the set time period,
wherein the at least one connected CIS event comprises an opportunity for the electronic device and the at least one external electronic device to exchange a packet, and
wherein at least one of the sub-events is used for the electronic device to transmit a packet and used for the at least one external electronic device to respond to the electronic device..
As to claim 9, the prior arts fail to teach, wherein the at least one of the packets is discarded at a time point preceding a flush point, and wherein the flush point is a time point at which the at least one packet is set to be discarded, in a time domain.
As to claim 14, the prior arts fail to teach, wherein the discarding the at least one of the packets to be transmitted during the set time period in the communication link comprises, discarding the at least one of the packets at a time point preceding a flush point, which is a time point at which the at least one of the packets is set to be discarded, in a time domain.
As to claim 17, the prior arts fail to teach, wherein the adjusting the at least one of flush points comprises:
based on a maximum number of sub-events in at least one connected isochronous stream (CIS) event in the set time period and a number of new data packets to be transmitted within a time interval in which a CIS event occurs, adjusting the at least one of flush points for the packets to be transmitted during the set time period,
wherein the at least one connected CIS event comprises an opportunity for the electronic device and the at least one external electronic device to exchange a packet, and
wherein at least one of the sub-events is used for the electronic device to transmit a packet and used for the at least one external electronic device to respond to the electronic device.
Claims 10-11 and 15 are objected due to their dependency to objected claims 9 and 14 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARID SEYEDVOSOGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-9679. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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,
tent Center, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at 5712727795. 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 Pa 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.
/FARID SEYEDVOSOGHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights