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 response to communications filed 05/11/2026. Clams 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the drawings has been amended and overcomes the objection.
In response to the arguments, the examiner notes that the replacement drawing is entered in part as there is a typographical error. Please correct the error of form to frame.
The applicant argues that Mosig and Kim do not disclose device time information and time sequence value corresponds to the system clock of the codec. The applicant states that the office action stated Mosig does not teach system clock of the codec. The applicant argues that paragraph 0056 does not teach the limitations.
In response to the arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Mosig explicitly discloses system clock of a device and meets the limitation “wherein the second device maps, based on the device time information and the time sequence value that corresponds to the system clock of the first device, the first sampling time sequence of the first data stream to a first moment on a time axis on which the device time information is located, and wherein the device time information and the time sequence value that corresponds to the system clock of the first device meet a first mapping relationship.” Mosig does not disclose explicitly a codec. Kim discloses that the device has a codec unit, the timing information of a system clock is sent to the codec of the device which meets the limitation of a system clock of the codec of the first device (Page 2, paragraph 0017, Page 6, paragraph 0073, claim 10). Kim is not used to teach the mapping limitation, rather to explicitly teach a codec of the first device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mosig by combining with Kim’s system to explicit teaching of a codec to meet the limitation “wherein the second device maps, based on the device time information and the time sequence value that corresponds to the system clock of the codec, the first sampling time sequence of the first data stream to a first moment on a time axis on which the device time information is located, and wherein the device time information and the time sequence value that corresponds to the system clock of the codec meet a first mapping relationship.” It is noted that paragraph 0056 is not being used to teach the limitation; paragraphs 0017, 0073 are being used to teach the limitation.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
It is noted Lin is not used to teach these limitations.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claims specific to a sampling time sequence, and first moment on a time axis, device time, cyclic prefix. must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosig (US 2004/0228367) in view of Kim et al (US 2022/0239782 and hereafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 1, Mosig discloses a method for data transmission, comprising:
sending, by a first device, a first packet to a second device, wherein the first packet comprises a first data stream and a first sampling time sequence of the first data stream (Page 4, paragraph 0050, source sending packet to sink, packet with stream, and time of clock);
sending, by the first device, a second packet to a third device, wherein the second packet comprises a second data stream and a sampling time sequence of the second data stream (Page 4, paragraph 0050, source sending packet to sink, packet with stream, and time of clock),
wherein the first packet and the second packet correspond to a first communication protocol, and the first sampling time sequence of the first data stream and the second sampling time sequence of the second data stream are time sequences whose values each are in a unit of a system clock of the first device (Page 4, paragraph 0050, RTP, Figure 1, timestamp in time units); and
sending, by the first device, a third packet to the second device and the third device (Figure 3), wherein the third packet comprises a first time stamp and a second time stamp, the first time stamp indicates device time information of the first device, the second time stamp indicates a time sequence value corresponding to the system clock of the first device, and the third packet corresponds to a second communication protocol (Page 4, paragraph 0050 – global time as device time and sample clock time, 0049, NTP),
wherein the second device maps, based on the device time information and the time sequence value that corresponds to the system clock of the first device, the first sampling time sequence of the first data stream to a first moment on a time axis on which the device time information is located, and wherein the device time information and the time sequence value that corresponds to the system clock of the first device meet a first mapping relationship (Page 5, paragraph 0059).
Mosig does not explicitly disclose a system clock of a codec of the first device.
Kim discloses a system clock of a codec of the first device (Page 2, paragraph 0017, Page 6, paragraph 0073, claim 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mosig to include the missing limitation as taught by Kim in order to have low latency (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Kim.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding Claim 12, Mosig discloses a method for data transmission, comprising:
receiving, by a second device, a first packet from a first device, wherein the first packet comprises a first data stream and a first sampling time sequence of the first data stream, the first packet corresponds to a first communication protocol, and the first sampling time sequence of the first data stream is a time sequence whose value is in a unit of a system clock of a codec of the first device (Figure 3, 308, Page 4, paragraph 0050, source sending packet to sink, packet with stream, and time of clock) ;
receiving, by the second device, a third packet from the first device, wherein the third packet comprises a first time stamp and a second time stamp, the first time stamp indicates device time information of the first device, the second time stamp indicates a time sequence value corresponding to the system clock of the first device, and the third packet corresponds to a second communication protocol (Figure 3, 306, Page 4, paragraph 0050, source sending packet to sink, packet with stream, and time of clock); and
mapping, by the second device based on the device time information and the time sequence value that corresponds to the system clock of the codec, the first sampling time sequence of the first data stream to a first moment on a time axis on which the device time information is located, wherein the device time information and the time sequence value that corresponds to the system clock of the first device meet a first mapping relationship (Page 5, paragraph 0059).
Mosig does not explicitly disclose a system clock of a codec of the first device.
Kim discloses a system clock of a codec of the first device (paragraph 0056, 0073, claim 10, see also Page 2, paragraph 0017). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mosig to include the missing limitation as taught by Kim in order to have low latency (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Kim.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding Claim 20, Mosig discloses a communication apparatus, comprising:
a processor (Page 4, paragraph 0050, PC inherently includes a processor), and
a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor (a buffer, Page 4, paragraph 0050, 0047, Figure 5, a personal computer inherently includes software which would be stored/buffered to perform the process), cause the communication apparatus to perform:
sending, by a first device, a first packet to a second device, wherein the first packet comprises a first data stream and a first sampling time sequence of the first data stream (Page 4, paragraph 0050, source sending packet to sink, packet with stream, and time of clock);
sending, by the first device, a second packet to a third device, wherein the second packet comprises a second data stream and a second sampling time sequence of the second data stream (Page 4, paragraph 0050, source sending packet to sink, packet with stream, and time of clock),
wherein the first packet and the second packet correspond to a first communication protocol, and the sampling time sequence of the first data stream and the sampling time sequence of the second data stream are time sequences whose values each are in a unit of a system clock of the first device (Page 4, paragraph 0050, RTP, Figure 1, timestamp in time units); and
sending, by the first device, a third packet to the second device and the third device (Figure 3), wherein the third packet comprises a first time stamp and a second time stamp, the first time stamp indicates device time information of the first device, the second time stamp indicates a time sequence value corresponding to the system clock of the first device, and the third packet corresponds to a second communication protocol (Page 4, paragraph 0050 – global time as device time and sample clock time, 0049, NTP),
wherein the second device maps, based on the device time information and the time sequence value that corresponds to the system clock of the first device, the first sampling time sequence of the first data stream to a first moment on a time axis on which the device time information is located, and wherein the device time information and the time sequence value that corresponds to the system clock of the first device meet a first mapping relationship (Page 5, paragraph 0059).
Mosig does not explicitly disclose a processor, memory, a system clock of a codec of the first device.
Kim discloses a processor (Page 7, paragraph 0085-0088), and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor preforms processing (Page 7, paragraph 0085-0088), a system clock of a codec of the first device (Page 2, paragraph 0017, Page 6, paragraph 0073, claim 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mosig to include the missing limitation or limitations as taught by Kim in order to have low latency (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Kim.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding Claim 2 and 13, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 1 and 12 respectively. Mosig discloses wherein the device time information represents air interface time of the first device (Page 6, paragraph 0064).
Regarding Claim 3, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Mosig discloses sending, by the first device, a system message having a hyper frame number and clock information that corresponds to a moment at which a start point of a cyclic prefix of a first orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol in a hyper frame corresponding to the hyper frame number passes through an antenna connector; or sending, by the first device, data link layer control plane data to the second device and the third device, wherein the data link layer control plane data comprises clock information associated with the device time information, and the clock information is used by the second device and the third device to perform clock synchronization with the first device (Page 4, paragraph 0050, Page 6, paragraph 0064).
Regarding Claim 4, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Mosig discloses obtaining, by the first device, the device time information before sending the third packet to the second device and the third device (Page 6, paragraph 0064, Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Mosig discloses receiving, by the first device, first information from the second device, and receiving second information from the third device, wherein the first information indicates a transmission delay of the first packet, and the second information indicates a transmission delay of the second packet (Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059); determining, by the first device, a first delay difference between the transmission delay of the first packet and the transmission delay of the second packet based on the transmission delay of the first packet and the transmission delay of the second packet (Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059); and adjusting, by the first device, an actual sending moment of the first packet or an actual sending moment of the second packet based on the first delay difference (Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059); or sending, by the first device, third information to the second device or the third device, wherein the third information indicates the first delay difference (Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059).
Regarding Claim 8, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Mosig discloses further comprising: obtaining, by the first device, a processing delay of the first packet and a processing delay of the second packet; determining, by the first device, a second delay difference based on the processing delay of the first packet and the processing delay of the second packet (Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059); and adjusting, by the first device, the actual sending moment of the first packet or the actual sending moment of the second packet based on the second delay difference; or sending, by the first device, fourth information to the second device or the third device, wherein the fourth information indicates the second delay difference (Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059).
Regarding Claim 9, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 8. Mosig discloses wherein the obtaining the processing delay of the first packet and the processing delay of the second packet comprises: receiving, by the first device, first indication information from the second device, wherein the first indication information indicates the processing delay of the first packet (Page 6, paragraph 0065, Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059)3; and receiving, by the first device, second indication information from the third device, wherein the second indication information indicates the processing delay of the second packet (Page 6, paragraph 0065, Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059).
Regarding Claim 10, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 9. Mosig discloses wherein the first indication information is carried in first signaling, and the second indication information is carried in second signaling (Page 6, paragraph 0065, Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059).
Regarding Claim 14, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 12. Mosig discloses further comprising: receiving, by the second device, a system message from the first device, wherein the system message comprises a hyper frame number and clock information that corresponds to a moment at which a start point of a cyclic prefix of a first OFDM symbol in a hyper frame corresponding to the hyper frame number passes through an antenna connector; or receiving, by the second device, data link layer control plane data from the first device, wherein the data link layer control plane data comprises clock information, and the clock information is associated with the device time information; and performing, by the second device, clock synchronization with the first device based on the clock information (Page 4, paragraph 0050, Page 6, paragraph 0064).
Regarding Claim 15, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 12. Mosig discloses further comprising: determining, by the second device, a transmission delay of the first packet based on the first moment and a second moment (Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059); and sending, by the second device, first information to the first device, wherein the first information indicates the transmission delay of the first packet ((=Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059); and receiving time of the first packet and the second moment meet the first mapping relationship (Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059).
Regarding Claim 16, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 12. Mosig discloses further comprising: receiving, by the second device, third information from the first device, wherein the third information indicates a first delay difference, the first delay difference is a difference between the transmission delay of the first packet and a transmission delay of a second packet, and the second packet is sent by the first device to a third device (Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0050, 0052-0053, 0055, 0059); and adjusting, by the second device, a processing moment of the first packet based on the first delay difference (Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059).
Regarding Claim 17, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 12. Mosig discloses further comprising: receiving, by the second device, fourth information from the first device, wherein the fourth information indicates a second delay difference, the second delay difference is a difference between a processing delay of the first packet and a processing delay of the second packet, and the second packet is sent by the first device to the third device (Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059); and adjusting, by the second device, a processing moment of the first packet based on the second delay difference (Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059).
Regarding Claim 18, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 12. Mosig discloses further comprising: sending, by the second device, first indication information to the first device, wherein the first indication information indicates the processing delay of the first packet (Page 6, paragraph 0065, Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059).
Regarding Claim 19, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 18. Mosig discloses wherein the first indication information is carried in first signaling (Page 6, paragraph 0065, Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059).
Claims 5, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosig in view of Kim as applied to claim 4 and 9 above, and further in view of Lin et al (US 2020/0100200 and hereafter referred to as “Lin”).’
Regarding Claim 5, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 4. Mosig discloses the obtaining the device time information comprises: obtaining, by the first device, the device time information (paragraph 0050) and a protocol stack (Figure 2). Mosig and Kim do not explicitly disclose inter layer. Lin discloses wherein the obtaining information comprises: obtaining, by the first device, the information by using an inter-layer primitive of a protocol stack (Figure 1a, Figure 1b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Lin in order to verify to the source device acknowledgement for evaluating reliability of data packet transmission (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Lin.
Regarding Claim 6, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 5. Mosig discloses the obtaining the device time information comprises: obtaining, by the first device, the device time information (paragraph 0050) and a protocol stack (Figure 2). Mosig and Kim do not explicitly disclose inter layer. Lin discloses wherein the obtaining information comprises: obtaining, by the first device, the information by using an inter-layer primitive of a protocol stack (Figure 1a, Figure 1b). Lin discloses sending data by using an inter-layer primitive of the protocol stack comprises: sending, by the first protocol layer, a first inter-layer primitive to the second protocol layer, wherein the first inter-layer primitive is used by the first protocol layer to request the second protocol layer to query the device time information; sending, by the second protocol layer, a second inter-layer primitive to the third protocol layer, wherein the second inter-layer primitive is used by the second protocol layer to request the third protocol layer to query the device time information; receiving, by the second protocol layer, a third inter-layer primitive from the third protocol layer, wherein the third inter-layer primitive is used by the third protocol layer to indicate the device time information to the second protocol layer; and receiving, by the first protocol layer, a fourth inter-layer primitive from the second protocol layer, wherein the fourth inter-layer primitive is used by the second protocol layer to indicate the information to the first protocol layer (Figure 1a, Figure 1b). See motivation above.
Regarding Claim 11, Mosig and Kim disclose all the limitations of Claim 9. Mosig discloses sending, by the first device, first information to the second device after receiving the first indication information, and sending, by the first device, second information to the third device after receiving the second indication information (Page 6, paragraph 0065, Page 3, paragraph 0048, Page 4-5, paragraph 0052-0053, 0055, 0059). Mosig and Kim are do not explicitly disclose acknowledgement information. Lin discloses sending, by the first device, first acknowledgment information to the second device after receiving the first indication information, wherein the first acknowledgment information indicates that the first indication information has been successfully received (paragraph 0217).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Lin in order to verify to the source device acknowledgement for evaluating reliability of data packet transmission (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Lin..
Lin does not teach more than one destination device. Mosig discloses a second device and third device.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the combination as it was held to duplicate Lin’s second device in order to show the source device can send data to multiple devices and receive acknowledgment from multiple devices.
See MPEP § 2144.04(VI) (B)
In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Therefore, it would be obvious to combine Mosig’s two sink devices with a duplicated second device to send two acknowledgement information from the duplicated second device to the first device which would meet “sending, by the first device, second acknowledgment information to the third device after receiving the second indication information, wherein the second acknowledgment information indicates that the second indication information has been successfully received” order to verify to the source device acknowledgement for evaluating reliability of data packet transmission (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Lin.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights