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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in reply to Applicant’s Response dated 06/23/2026. Claims 1, 14, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s argument (see page 10) regarding the drawing objections, the objections to the drawings have been withdrawn in view of the replacement sheets submitted with the amendment.
The Applicant argues (see pages 10-11) that the cited passages of Ilany have not been shown to disclose that the egress packet includes an identifier, much less that the identifier identifies the application 208, as recited in claim 1. Moreover, the cited passages of Hany have not been shown to disclose that different values of a bit indicate different transport protocols corresponding to the application 208, much less that the bit is included in a field of the egress packet, as recited in claim 1.
In response to the Applicant’s argument, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilany et al. (U.S. PGPub 2024/0007405) in view of Brockbank et al. (U.S. PGPub 2015/0319094) is made in view of the amendments made to the claims. The combination of Ilany and the new reference, Brockbank, is now relied upon to teach all of the features of claims 1, 14 and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilany et al. (U.S. PGPub 2024/0007405) in view of Brockbank et al. (U.S. PGPub 2015/0319094).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 20, Ilany teaches A transmission method, comprising: receiving first indication information, (Ilany, see fig. 5; see paragraph 0054 the NID may receive an egress packet (indication information). For example, the egress packet may include data received from the application 208, which has been formatted into the first network packet 302 according to the first transport protocol (first technology stack type).)
wherein the first indication information indicates a first technology stack type corresponding to a first application; (Ilany, see fig. 5; see paragraph 0054 the NID may receive an egress packet. For example, the egress packet may include data received from the application 208, which has been formatted into the first network packet 302 according to the first transport protocol (first technology stack type).)
establishing, based on the first indication information, a transmission channel that is based on the first technology stack type; and (Ilany, see fig. 5; see paragraph 0055 In step 504, the NID may determine whether an enhanced transport protocol (e.g., the SRD protocol) is being used for the destination address. The decision to use the enhanced transport protocol may depend on several factors such as whether the enhanced transport protocol has been enabled for the given application, or the enhanced transport protocol is supported by the destination computing device,...; see paragraph 0060 if the state of the enhanced transport protocol connection is in the active state, the NID can transmit the first packet to the destination address using the enhanced transport protocol connection. For example, the NID can encapsulate the first packet (e.g., TCP or UDP packet) according to the second transport protocol (e.g., enhanced transport protocol such as SRD) to generate the second network packet 300 for transmitting over the enhanced transport protocol connection.)
sending or receiving at least one of signaling or data of the first application through the transmission channel. (Ilany, see fig. 5; see paragraph 0060 if the state of the enhanced transport protocol connection is in the active state, the NID can transmit the first packet to the destination address using the enhanced transport protocol connection. For example, the NID can encapsulate the first packet (e.g., TCP or UDP packet) according to the second transport protocol (e.g., enhanced transport protocol such as SRD) to generate the second network packet 300 for transmitting over the enhanced transport protocol connection.)
However, Ilany does not explicitly teach wherein the first indication information comprises a field and an identifier that identifies the first application, wherein a first value of a bit in the field indicates the first technology stack type, and a second value of the bit indicates a different technology stack type;
Brockbank teaches wherein the first indication information comprises a field and an identifier that identifies the first application, wherein a first value of a bit in the field indicates the first technology stack type, and a second value of the bit indicates a different technology stack type; (Brockbank, see figs. 1-2; see paragraph 0049 n bits of the flow cookie can be used to represent a specific application within the controller node. (i.e. the application identifier can be regarded as a small integer value (<2.sup.n) left-bit-shifted by (64-n) bits. In embodiments, the value of the flow cookie is the bitwise OR of the application identifier and the session identifier...; see paragraph 0051 flows having flow cookie values with bits matching the one or more bits set to identify the first application, but with other bits which do not match the calculated session identifier, or flows having flow cookie values with bits matching the one or more bits set to identify the second application...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Ilany and Brockbank to provide the technique of the first indication information comprises a field and an identifier that identifies the first application, wherein a first value of a bit in the field indicates the first technology stack type, and a second value of the bit indicates a different technology stack type of Brockbank in the system of Ilany in order to ensure that the devices are in the correct state and reduce potential error (Brockbank, see paragraphs 0008-0009).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Ilany-Brockbank teaches wherein the receiving first indication information comprises: receiving the first indication information from a first device; and (Ilany, see fig. 5; see paragraph 0054 the NID may receive an egress packet (indication information). For example, the egress packet may include data received from the application 208, which has been formatted into the first network packet 302 according to the first transport protocol (first technology stack type).)
the sending or receiving at least one of signaling or data of the first application through the transmission channel comprises: sending at least one of the signaling or the data of the first application to the first device through the transmission channel. (Ilany, see fig. 5; see paragraph 0060 if the state of the enhanced transport protocol connection is in the active state, the NID can transmit the first packet to the destination address using the enhanced transport protocol connection. For example, the NID can encapsulate the first packet (e.g., TCP or UDP packet) according to the second transport protocol (e.g., enhanced transport protocol such as SRD) to generate the second network packet 300 for transmitting over the enhanced transport protocol connection.)
Regarding claim 13, Ilany-Brockbank teaches wherein the first technology stack type comprises an internet protocol (IP) technology stack or a non-IP technology stack. (Ilany, see fig. 5; see paragraph 0054 the NID may receive an egress packet. For example, the egress packet may include data received from the application 208, which has been formatted into the first network packet 302 according to the first transport protocol ( internet protocol (IP) technology stack or a non-IP technology stack).)
Claims 3, 5-9, 11-12, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilany-Brockbank in view of Bolton et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0235550).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Ilany-Brockbank teaches wherein the receiving the first indication information from a first device comprises: receiving broadcast information from the first device, wherein the broadcast information comprises the first indication information; and (Ilany, see fig. 5; see paragraph 0045 the NID receives an egress packet (e.g., from a host) for transmitting to a destination address, the NID can allocate a new connection (e.g., indicated by an action 410) to that destination address and transition to a probing state to start establishing an enhanced transport protocol connection (e.g., an SRD connection) with the destination address...)
However, Ilany-Brockbank does not explicitly teach sending first request information to the first device, wherein the first request information is used to request to access the first device.
Bolton teaches sending first request information to the first device, wherein the first request information is used to request to access the first device. (Bolton, see fig. 4; see paragraph 0044 send request 404 to the MCD requesting a response that indicates the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD. The MCD can then return a message 406 indicating the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD.... respond with return message 410 indicating the capabilities of the MCD...; see paragraphs 0045-0046 Usable lingoes message 412, which can be sent to the MCD from the accessory, can include an identification of a set of usable lingoes that the accessory can use during communication with the MCD. In some embodiments, the lingoes message can include a bitmask where the state of each bit can indicate whether a specific lingo is supported or not supported)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Ilany-Brockbank and Bolton to provide the technique of sending first request information to the first device, wherein the first request information is used to request to access the first device of Bolton in the system of Ilany-Brockbank in order to indicate whether a capability is supported and omit unsupported capabilities from the set of usable capabilities or turn off unsupported capabilities (Bolton, see paragraphs 0046-0047).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton teaches wherein before the establishing a transmission channel that is based on the first technology stack type, the method further comprises: determining that the first technology stack type matches a second protocol stack type corresponding to the first application in a second device. (Ilany, see fig. 5; see paragraph 0055 In step 504, the NID may determine whether an enhanced transport protocol (e.g., the SRD protocol) is being used for the destination address. The decision to use the enhanced transport protocol may depend on several factors such as whether the enhanced transport protocol has been enabled for the given application, or the enhanced transport protocol is supported by the destination computing device,...; see paragraphs 0057-0058 In step 508, if the enhanced transport protocol is being used (matches a second protocol stack type), the NID may determine whether the destination address is using the SRD for the first time based on the address table...the NID may determine whether there is a match on the destination address in the address table.)
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Ilany-Brockbank teaches all of the features of claims 2 and 15. However, Ilany-Brockbank does not explicitly teach wherein before the receiving the first indication information from a first device, the method further comprises: sending first request information to the first device, wherein the first request information is used to request to access the first device; and
the receiving the first indication information from a first device comprises: receiving first response information for the first request information from the first device, wherein the first response information comprises the first indication information.
Bolton teaches wherein before the receiving the first indication information from a first device, the method further comprises: sending first request information to the first device, wherein the first request information is used to request to access the first device; and (Bolton, see fig. 4; see paragraph 0044 send request 404 to the MCD requesting a response that indicates the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD. The MCD can then return a message 406 indicating the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD.... respond with return message 410 indicating the capabilities of the MCD.)
the receiving the first indication information from a first device comprises: receiving first response information for the first request information from the first device, wherein the first response information comprises the first indication information. (Bolton, see fig. 4; see paragraph 0044 send request 404 to the MCD requesting a response that indicates the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD. The MCD can then return a message 406 indicating the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD.... respond with return message 410 indicating the capabilities of the MCD.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Ilany-Brockbank and Bolton to provide the technique of before the receiving the first indication information from a first device, the method further comprises: sending first request information to the first device, wherein the first request information is used to request to access the first device and receiving first response information for the first request information from the first device, wherein the first response information comprises the first indication information of Bolton in the system of Ilany-Brockbank in order to indicate whether a capability is supported and omit unsupported capabilities from the set of usable capabilities or turn off unsupported capabilities (Bolton, see paragraphs 0046-0047).
Regarding claims 7, Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton teaches wherein the first request information comprises identification information of the first application. (Bolton, see fig. 4; see paragraph 0052 A preferred application identifier can be used to indicate an application that uses one of the supported accessory protocols and that can be downloaded and/or executed on the MCD. Thus, when an accessory couples with an MCD that does not include an application that has the capability to communicate with the accessory, preferred application identifier can point the MCD to a web page...) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 6 and 19 is also applied to claim 7.
Regarding claims 8, Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton teaches wherein the first request information is carried in an access request frame, and the first response information is carried in an access response frame. (Bolton, see fig. 4; see paragraph 0044 send request 404 to the MCD requesting a response that indicates the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD. The MCD can then return a message 406 indicating the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD.... respond with return message 410 indicating the capabilities of the MCD.) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 6 and 19 is also applied to claim 7.
Regarding claims 9, Ilany-Brockbank teaches all of the features of claim 2. However, Ilany-Brockbank does not explicitly teach wherein before the receiving the first indication information from a first device, the method further comprises: sending second request information to the first device, wherein the second request information is used to request to perform capability negotiation with the first device; and
the receiving the first indication information from a first device comprises: receiving second response information for the second request information from the first device, wherein the second response information comprises the first indication information.
Bolton teaches wherein before the receiving the first indication information from a first device, the method further comprises: sending second request information to the first device, wherein the second request information is used to request to perform capability negotiation with the first device; and (Bolton, see fig. 4; see paragraph 0044 send request 404 to the MCD requesting a response that indicates the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD. The MCD can then return a message 406 indicating the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD.... respond with return message 410 indicating the capabilities of the MCD...; see paragraphs 0045-0046 Usable lingoes message 412, which can be sent to the MCD from the accessory, can include an identification of a set of usable lingoes that the accessory can use during communication with the MCD. In some embodiments, the lingoes message can include a bitmask where the state of each bit can indicate whether a specific lingo is supported or not supported)
the receiving the first indication information from a first device comprises: receiving second response information for the second request information from the first device, wherein the second response information comprises the first indication information. (Bolton, see fig. 4; see paragraph 0044 send request 404 to the MCD requesting a response that indicates the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD. The MCD can then return a message 406 indicating the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD.... respond with return message 410 indicating the capabilities of the MCD...; see paragraphs 0045-0046 Usable lingoes message 412, which can be sent to the MCD from the accessory, can include an identification of a set of usable lingoes that the accessory can use during communication with the MCD. In some embodiments, the lingoes message can include a bitmask where the state of each bit can indicate whether a specific lingo is supported or not supported)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Ilany-Brockbank and Bolton to provide the technique of before the receiving the first indication information from a first device, the method further comprises: sending second request information to the first device, wherein the second request information is used to request to perform capability negotiation with the first device; and receiving second response information for the second request information from the first device, wherein the second response information comprises the first indication information of Bolton in the system of Ilany-Brockbank in order to indicate whether a capability is supported and omit unsupported capabilities from the set of usable capabilities or turn off unsupported capabilities (Bolton, see paragraphs 0046-0047).
Regarding claims 11, Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton teaches wherein the second request information comprises identification information of the first application. (Bolton, see fig. 4; see paragraph 0044 send request 404 to the MCD requesting a response that indicates the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD. The MCD can then return a message 406 indicating the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD.... respond with return message 410 indicating the capabilities of the MCD...; see paragraphs 0045-0046 Usable lingoes message 412, which can be sent to the MCD from the accessory, can include an identification of a set of usable lingoes that the accessory can use during communication with the MCD. In some embodiments, the lingoes message can include a bitmask where the state of each bit can indicate whether a specific lingo is supported or not supported) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claim 9 is also applied to claim 11.
Regarding claims 12, Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton teaches wherein the second request information comprises second indication information, and the second indication information indicates a second technology stack type corresponding to the first application. (Bolton, see fig. 4; see paragraph 0044 send request 404 to the MCD requesting a response that indicates the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD. The MCD can then return a message 406 indicating the lingo version (or versions) supported by the MCD.... respond with return message 410 indicating the capabilities of the MCD...; see paragraphs 0045-0046 Usable lingoes message 412, which can be sent to the MCD from the accessory, can include an identification of a set of usable lingoes that the accessory can use during communication with the MCD. In some embodiments, the lingoes message can include a bitmask where the state of each bit can indicate whether a specific lingo is supported or not supported) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claim 9 is also applied to claim 12.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton in view of Wang et al. (CN 114449602, see the English translated copy).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton teaches all of the features of claims 3 and 16. However, Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton does not explicitly teach wherein the broadcast information comprises a SparkLink basic (SLB) system message or a SparkLink low energy (SLE) broadcast message.
Wang teaches wherein the broadcast information comprises a SparkLink basic (SLB) system message or a SparkLink low energy (SLE) broadcast message. (Wang, page 5, paragraphs 9-11 … the star flash access layer 110 provides SparkLink Basic (SLB) 111 (e.g.,SLB 111a, SLB 111b and SLB 111c) and Sparklink Low Energy (SLE) 112 (e.g., SLE 112a, SLE 112band SLE 112c) two communication interfaces…)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton and Wang to provide the technique of the broadcast information comprises a SparkLink basic (SLB) system message or a SparkLink low energy (SLE) broadcast message of Wang in the system of Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton in order to improve transmission reliability (Wang, see page 5, paragraphs 9-11).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton in view of Jung et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/0080547).
Regarding claim 10, Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton teaches all of the features of claim 9. However, Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton does not explicitly teach wherein the second request information is carried in a video projection application capability negotiation request message, and
the second response information is carried in a video projection application capability negotiation response message.
Jung teaches wherein the second request information is carried in a video projection application capability negotiation request message, and (Jung, see claim 6 determining an image format in a User Equipment (UE) supporting a video call...determine whether a capability of the UE is able to support the first image format requested by the opposing UE and generate a second SDP message including a second image format when it is determined that the video encoder is not be able to support the first image format requested by the opposing UE...the first image format is a preferred image format requested by the opposing UE...)
the second response information is carried in a video projection application capability negotiation response message. (Jung, see claim 6 determining an image format in a User Equipment (UE) supporting a video call...determine whether a capability of the UE is able to support the first image format requested by the opposing UE and generate a second SDP message including a second image format when it is determined that the video encoder is not be able to support the first image format requested by the opposing UE...the first image format is a preferred image format requested by the opposing UE...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton and Jung to provide the technique of the second request information is carried in a video projection application capability negotiation request message, and the second response information is carried in a video projection application capability negotiation response message of Jung in the system of Ilany-Brockbank-Bolton in order to correctly deliver a desired format to an opposing UE while using the intact existing signaling system (Jung, see paragraph 0035).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG VANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7023. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-2PM, 3PM-5PM.
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, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/MENG VANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights