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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant alleges that Neugeboren does not disclose newly amended limitations since insertion/deletion of null packets in Neugeboren is not based on the measured state of the dejitter buffer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Neugeboren discloses (¶0026-¶0028) that the remote device measures the fullness state of the buffer and determines if the measured value crosses a predefined threshold where threshold is a value measuring the rate of the buffer filling up/emptying; if the rate of change crosses a predefined threshold, the video stream is assumed to be out of sync; (¶0031-¶0032, ¶0036) when the buffer status crosses the threshold, nulls packets are added/deleted to maintain a fixed bitrate entering the PHY as represented in Fig. 4. Therefore it moots Applicant’s argument.
Furthermore, newly added limitations to claims 1 and 11 now invoke 112(a) rejection.
See the new rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite limitations “wherein said remote device processes said video packets from said video core independently of synchronization of said video core clock and said remote device clock”, the examiner is unable to find support for this limitation in the originally filed spec paragraph 0034 and/or drawings. Nowhere in the spec and/or drawing discloses remote device processes said video packets independently of synchronization of said video core clock and said remote device clock. Application fails to provide adequate support required by 112(a) or the first paragraph of 35 USC 112 for above mentioned negative limitation in the detailed description. Applicant to provide support for this limitation.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected due to their dependency on the independent claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2022/0248069 to Garvey (“Garvey”) in view of US PG Pub 2022/0174341 to Neugeboren (“Neugeboren”).
Regarding claim 1, “A remote device configured for operation in a Distributed Access Architecture and for receiving video packets from a video core having a video core clock” reads on the system/method for adaptively adjusting a slew rate of a dejitter buffer in a remote device in a distributed access architecture (abstract) disclosed by Garvey and represented in Fig. 3.
As to “said remote device comprising: a remote device clock” Garvey discloses (¶0024) that the remote device includes the clock as represented in Fig. 3 (element 110).
As to “a dejitter buffer that receives packets from a video core” Garvey discloses (¶0025) that a dejitter buffer of the remote device receives video packets sent from the video core as represented in Fig. 3 (element 116).
As to “a downstream physical (PHY) device” Garvey discloses (¶0025) that the packets forwarded to a downstream PHY device as represented in Fig. 3 (element 120).
As to “…a measured state of the dejitter buffer” Garvey discloses (¶0045-¶0046) that an adaptive frequency slew rate adjustment, which means varying the frequency slew over time based upon a measured state of the dejitter buffer; the frequency offset is determined by measuring a fullness state of the dejitter buffer.
Garvey meets all the limitations of the claim except “a controller that selectively enables or disables processing of a stream of said video packets exiting the dejitter buffer and prior to receipt of the packets by the downstream PHY, based on a measured state of the dejitter buffer.” However, Neugeboren discloses (¶0023-¶0032) that based on a measurement of the state of the dejitter buffer, the RPD device configured in synchronous mode; when the buffer status is changed based on the threshold, the device disables synchronous mode by switching to asynchronous mode as represented in Fig. 4; (¶0019, ¶0031) the transport stream with/without inserting null packets exiting dejitter buffer is forwarded to a PHY device as represented in Figs. 2-3 (element 120).
As to “wherein when said controller detects a rate of change of said dejitter buffer compared to a first threshold indicating an overflow condition of said dejitter buffer, said controller causes video packets exiting the dejitter buffer to be processed to drop null packets to correct for the detected overflow condition; and wherein when said controller detects a rate of change of a dejitter buffer compared to a second threshold indicating an underflow condition of said dejitter buffer, said controller causes video packets exiting the dejitter buffer to be processed to insert null packets to correct for the detected underflow condition” Neugeboren discloses (¶0026-¶0028) that the remote device measures the fullness state of the buffer and determines if the measured value crosses a predefined threshold where threshold is a value measuring the rate of the buffer filling up/emptying; if the rate of change crosses a predefined threshold, the video stream is assumed to be out of sync; (¶0031-¶0032, ¶0036) when the buffer status crosses the threshold, nulls packets are added/deleted to maintain a fixed bitrate entering the PHY as represented in Fig. 4.
As to “wherein said remote device processes said video packets from said video core independently of synchronization of said video core clock and said remote device clock” Neugeboren discloses (¶0017) that in sync mode the remote device and its video core are synchronized in time to the same reference clock whereas (¶0020) in async mode, the remote device and its video core are not synchronized in time to the same reference clock. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Garvey’s system by selecting/switching processing of a stream based on a measured state of the dejitter buffer as taught by Neigeboren in order to spread the functionality of the CMTS/CCAP throughout the network and to improve architectures and accurately preserving timing information associated with video data transmitted in distributed access architectures (Neugeboren - ¶0005, ¶0010).
Regarding claim 2, “The remote device of claim 1 comprising either a Remote Physical Device (RPD) or a Remote MACPHY Device (RMD)” Garvey discloses (¶0008, ¶0022) that the DAA architecture uses remote video capable devices such as an RMD or RPD.
Regarding claim 3, “The remote device of claim 1 where the measured state of the dejitter buffer comprises a rate of change of a fullness of the dejitter buffer” Garvey discloses (¶0045-¶0046) that the frequency offset is determined, for example, by measuring a fullness state of the dejitter buffer; the frequency slew rate applied is dependent on an estimation of the ppm frequency offset. As shown previously, the frequency offset is directly proportional to the rate of change of the dejitter buffer occupancy i.e., Eq. 1. Therefore, after a short setting period during which high frequency network jitter can be averaged out, the rate of change of the dejitter buffer occupancy can be calculated, thereby giving an approximation of the current ppm frequency offset.
Regarding claim 4, “The remote device of claim 1 where the processing of the video packets includes at least one of: adding packets to the video stream; removing packets from the video stream; and modifying Program Clock References (PCRs) of one or more packets in the video stream” Garvey discloses (¶0029) that after packets are added/dropped as needed, a PCR module re-stamps the data packets with updated PCRs due to the removal/insertion of MPEG packets before forwarding the re-stamped packets to the PHY device; (¶0056) to recenter the dejitter buffer, the RPD/RMD utilizes the allowable tolerance on the PCR accuracy to accumulate DOCSIS ticks, which will facilitate the addition/removal of transport stream packets to/from the egress stream. ISO/IEC 13818-1 defines this PCR tolerance as “the maximum inaccuracy allowed in received PCRs. This inaccuracy is due to imprecision in the PCR values or to PCR modification during re-multiplexing as represented in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 5, “The remote device of claim 1 synchronized to a clock of the video core” Garvey discloses (¶0024) that in sync (synchronous) mode, the RPD (or RMD) and its video core are synchronized in time to the same reference clock; the timing server maintains an identical timing lock (i.e., frequency and phase) with both the clock in the video core and the clock in the RPD.
Regarding claim 6, “The remote device of claim 1 not synchronized to a clock of the video core” Garvey discloses (¶0027) that the RPD and video core is configured to operate in an asynchronous (async) mode where the RPD and its video core are not synchronized in time to the same reference clock.
Regarding claim 8, “The remote device of claim 1 where the video stream exiting the dejitter buffer is forwarded to the downstream PHY without processing if the magnitude of the measured state is less than the first threshold and the second threshold indicating neither said overflow condition nor said underflow condition” Neugeboren discloses (¶0031-¶0032) that while the device is in synchronous mode and the buffer status crosses the threshold, the packets enter the PHY without using synchronous mode by using asynchronous mode as represented in Fig. 4; (¶0020) in async mode, the remote device and its video core are not synchronized in time to the same reference clock. Instead, the remote device is required to detect the difference between its own clock and the core clock and be able to either insert or remove MPEG packets as necessary to maintain expected MPEG bitrate, and also adjust the MPEG PCR values due to the removal/insertion of the MPEG packets.
Regarding claim 9, “The remote device of claim 8 where PCRs of packets of the video stream are modified only when the measured state is greater than at least one of the first threshold and the second threshold” Neugeboren discloses (¶0020, ¶0032) that when its determined the buffer state exceeds the threshold, the PCR stamps are adjusted for added/removed packets as represented in Fig. 4 (element 148).
Regarding claim 10, “The remote device of claim 1 where there are a plurality of thresholds, and video packets are either added to or dropped from the video stream based on which threshold is passed” Neugeboren discloses (¶0031-¶0033) that depending on the threshold levels of the dejitter buffer, null packets are added or packets are deleted as represented in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 11, see rejection similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection similar to claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection similar to claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection similar to claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection similar to claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection similar to claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, see rejection similar to claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection similar to claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection similar to claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection similar to claim 10.
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 PINKAL R CHOKSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-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, BRIAN T PENDLETON can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/PINKAL R CHOKSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights