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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 2-21 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Applicant original presentation is directed towards a combination, wherein the amended claims are directed toward subcombination of the original combination. The amended claims are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination of claims 2, 11 and 17 has separate utility such as obtaining first progressive video frame data, the first progressive video frame data including one or more changes in pixel data with respect to the initial video frame, to cause a generation of a first progressive video frame in the sequence for display using the initial video frame data as reference frame data and sending an acknowledgement indicating the first progressive video frame data has been received. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 2-21 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
The reply filed on 9/8/26 is not fully responsive to the prior Office Action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): Original presentation. See 37 CFR 1.111. Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given ONE (1) MONTH or THIRTY (30) DAYS from the mailing date of this notice, whichever is longer, within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 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 of this title, 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srikantam et al. (US 2021/0120232).
Regarding claim 1, Srikantam discloses a computer-implemented method (see fig. 1), comprising: sending, to a client device (see 104 in fig. 1), first video frame data for a first video frame in a sequence of video frames to be displayed (see 508 of 502 in fig. 5); sending, to the client device, second video frame data for a second video frame in the sequence (e.g. see 514 in fig. 5), the second video frame data including changes in pixel data with respect to the first video frame (see 514 from 508 in fig. 5), wherein the client device is enabled to generate the second video frame for display using the first video frame data and the second video frame data (see 132 in fig. 1 of 508 and 514 in fig. 5); determining that an acknowledgement has been received indicating the client device successfully received the second video frame data (see 412 in fig. 4A for 514 in fig. 5, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the same acknowledgment method for other layers for the benefit of assuring all frame data are received before further processing. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)); and sending, to the client device, third video frame data for a third video frame in the sequence (see 520 or 522 in fig. 5), wherein the third video frame data includes changes in the pixel data with respect to the first video frame or the second video frame (see 520 or 522 in fig. 5).
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Buttimer et al. (US 2008/0247463), discloses video coding with frame error feedback.
2. Montminy et al. (US 2014/0286407), discloses resilient signal encoding.
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 RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
