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 Amendment received 7/31/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 & 12-20 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. The further limitations of the respective parent claims 1 & 11 are not disclosed by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner disagrees the arguments presented on pages 2-5 under the paragraph (a) Regarding the features of claim 1, ---"transmitting a stream to a first host stream buffer or a first processor core by a device stream buffer," --- as follows:
Firstly, the examiner disagrees with the applicant’s interpretations of the claimed invention; the examiner applied, as stated in the art rejection of the last office action, the BRI that clearly teaches the functionally equivalent imitations of the recited claimed invention, as can be seen from the 103 art rejection of the last office action.
Secondly, more specifically, the applicant’s arguments --- the distribution block 210 then transmits the processed or decoded audio frames to the output buffer 212 or the output buffer 214. Accordingly, in Neuman, the component that actually transmits the relevant data to the output buffers 212 and 214 is the distribution block 210, not the input buffers 202 and 204, which the Office Action maps to the claimed device stream buffers.” --- has no clear support from the claimed invention. In other words, the claimed “transmitting” does not specifically limit/require the one specific transmission method, and the claimed “by a device stream buffer” does not require/limit the one specific structure of the “device stream buffer” (i.e., the teachings of the device stream buffer can have other controlling circuitries that performs, additional, buffer related functions or operations with additional operations/functions). Therefore, the applicant’s arguments based on the applicant’s narrow interpretation, different from the examiner’s BRI, are not clearly supported by the recited/claimed invention. In addition, the Neuman reference teachings of the not expressly/specifically claimed structure can have additional features/structures for performing additional functions or operations and still teaches the functional equivalences of the claimed invention.
Thirdly, the applicant’s arguments with respect to the levels/details of the Neuman reference teachings are not commensurate with the level of the claimed invention; therefore, the applicant’s argument based on the applicant’s much narrower interpretation, different from the examiner’s BRI, is not clearly supported by the recited/claimed invention. In other words, the claimed invention does not provide any details or limited methods of “transmitting” method, such as in terms of timing, controlling of the transmitting circuitry, types of transmitting circuitry, controlling of device stream buffer, types of device stream buffer…etc., in order to clearly support the applicant’s argument.
Fourthly, for the sake of the argument, if the applicant’s arguments are supported by the claimed invention, the claimed invention/argument of the claimed phrase ---"transmitting a stream to a first host stream buffer or a first processor core by a device stream buffer,"--- is unclear and/or fails to supported from the context of the claimed invention because, the two stream buffers, without more details or by themselves, cannot support/perform the claimed “transmitting” function/step in the context of the claimed invention.
Lastly, as for the similar arguments on pages 5-9, due to the similar nature of the arguments & the similar disagreements from the examiner, the above disagreements with respect to the claimed invention are similarly applied.
For the above reasons, the examiner maintains the art rejection as follows.
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 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuman (US 2007/0136729 A1).
Examiner relies on the entire teachings of the Neuman reference for this rejection; the examiner advises the applicant to carefully consider the entire teachings of the Neuman reference to better understand the examiner’s position and the interpretations applied to the claimed invention.
The Neuman reference teaches functionally/operationally equivalent limitations of the claimed invention, when the examiner applies Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, as follows:
Claims 1 & 11
Neuman Ref. Teachings (emphasis underlined)
1.A data transmitting method, executed by a processor reading at least one command stored in a memory, comprising:
Operations of fig 2B
transmitting a stream to a first host stream buffer or a first processor core by a device stream buffer;
Fig 2B with accompanying description, par 38, “communicate the processed frames to the output buffer 212 or the output buffer 214 based on whether the processed data is from the input bitstream A 222 or input bitstream B224”; the examiner notes that the host stream buffer & the device stream buffer are respectively taught by the Buffers 212-214 & 202-204
determining whether the first host stream buffer or the first processor core is full; and if it is determined that the first host stream buffer is full or the first processor core is full,
Fig 2B with accompanying description, par 40-41, “the extra buffer space 216 may be allocated and utilized for handling overflow…where overflow occurs, extra processed data may be stored in the modifiable buffer portion 216”
transmitting the stream to a second host stream buffer or a second processor core by a backup device stream buffer.
Fig 2B with accompanying description, par 41, “where overflow occurs, extra processed data may be stored in the modifiable buffer portion 216”; par 38, “block 210…communicate the processed frame to the output buffer”; the examiner notes that the second host stream buffer & the backup device stream buffer are respectively taught by the buffer 216 & buffers 202/204 in combination with 210 operations
11. A data transmitting device, comprising: a memory, configured to store at least one command; and a processor, configured to read the at least one command to execute following steps: transmitting a stream to a first host stream buffer or a first processor core by a device stream buffer; determining whether the first host stream buffer or the first processor core is full; and if it is determined that the first host stream buffer is full or the first processor core is full, transmitting the stream to a second host stream buffer or a second processor core by a backup device stream buffer.
The teachings of the claim 1 are similarly applied.
The examiner notes that the Neuman reference does not expressly or identically labels the “backup device stream buffer” for “transmitting the stream toa second host stream buffer” when a full condition is determined; however, the functional/operational equivalence of the claimed limitation of “backup device stream buffer” for “transmitting the stream to a second host stream buffer” when a full buffer condition determined is determined are taught by the “Buffers” (202/204) in combination with the “DIST” (210) (i.e., see the operational & functional description of figure 2B with accompanying description). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to come up with the claimed invention from the detailed teachings of the Neuman reference and the reasons discussed above.
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 CHRISTOPHER B SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4159. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 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, IDRISS N ALROBAYE can be reached at 571-270-1023. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights