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 09/30/3025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that DiLorenzo does not teach “monitoring individual delays (LSET) for a multiple of individual data streams being transmitted over the IP network from at least one production node to said at least one receiving node”. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. TS comparator (338 figure 3) compares the plurality of streams to detect an offset (paragraph 43 and 53), meeting the claim language.
Applicant argues that DiLorenzo does not teach “determining at least one common network offset for compensating said individual data streams in the IP network based on an aggregate of the monitored individual delays”. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. A delta which is the difference between the plurality of stream is determined, this delta corresponds to the offset (paragraph 43), meeting the claim language.
Applicant argues that DiLorenzo does not teach “time adjusting data in said individual data streams transmitted over said IP network by manipulating time stamps of said individual data streams using said at least one common network offset”. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. The delta that is calculated between the plurality of streams is used to manipulate the timestamps (paragraph 43), meeting the claim language.
Applicant argues that DiLorenzo does not teach “immediately transmitting said data such that said data is transmitted without buffering said data”. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. DiLorenzo discloses that the buffering is optional (paragraph 76), at least when buffering is not required the claim language is met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 13-15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DiLorenzo, US 2014/0020013.
Regarding claim 1, DiLorenzo discloses a method for remote media production in an IP network, the method comprising:
at least one receiving node,
monitoring individual delays (LSET) for a multiple of individual data streams being transmitted over the IP network from at least one production node to said at least one receiving node (paragraph 32, 43 and 53);
determining at least one common network offset for compensating said individual data streams in the IP network based on an aggregate of the monitored individual delays (paragraph 32 and 43);
time adjusting data in said individual data streams transmitted over said IP network by manipulating time stamps of said individual data streams using said at least one common network offset (paragraph 32 and 43); and
immediately transmitting said data such that said data is transmitted without buffering said data (paragraph 76).
Claims 13-15 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, DiLorenzo discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said individual data streams are associated with at least one of a number of predetermined groups (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 3, DiLorenzo discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said determining the at least one common network offset is based on time stamps (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 4, DiLorenzo discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said determining the at least one common network offset comprises determining in said LSET at least one of an average delay value, a minimum delay value, a maximum delay value, an optimum delay value, and a network delay correction factor within at least one predetermined max and/or min margin value (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 5, DiLorenzo discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein said optimum delay value, and/or said at least one predetermined max and/or min margin value are determined by at least one of: calculation, estimation, based on network properties, by a third part, via a management interface, and by machine learning (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 6, DiLorenzo discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said manipulating time stamps is performed in the at least one receiving node or in the at least one producing node (figure 1-2, paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 7, DiLorenzo discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said manipulating time stamps comprises timestamping data in said individual data streams with a local time stamp compensated by removing or adding at least one common network offset, or exchanging an experienced network delay with said at least one common network offset (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 8, DiLorenzo discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said manipulating time stamps comprises, at said at least one production node, time stamping data of at least one source device with a local time stamp compensated by said at least one common network offset (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 20, DiLorenzo discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising adjusting said time stamps to provide frame start alignment with respect to frame start of locally/studio generated data streams (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 21, DiLorenzo discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said step of manipulating time stamps comprises:
adding an additional time stamp with a local time stamp compensated by removing or adding said at least one common network offset or by exchanging an experienced network delay with said common network offset (paragraph 43).
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, 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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the DiLorenzo in view of Beardsley et al., US 2018/0337765.
Regarding claim 9, DiLorenzo discloses the method according to claim 1.
DiLorenzo is silent about wherein said manipulating time stamps comprises at said at least one production node, adjusting time of a source clock with said at least one common network offset.
In an analogous art, Beardsley discloses wherein said manipulating time stamps comprises at said at least one production node, adjusting time of a source clock with said at least one common network offset (paragraph 16, 40-41 and 44-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DiLorenzo’s method with the teachings of Beardsley. The motivation would have been to properly combined the streams for the benefit of providing synchronized media.
Regarding claim 10, DiLorenzo and Beardsley disclose the method according to claim 9, wherein the adjusted time of the source clock is distributed back over the IP network using a network time protocol (DiLorenzo paragraph 43; Beardsley paragraph 16, 40-41 and 44-46).
Regarding claim 11, DiLorenzo and Beardsley disclose the method according to claim 9, where wherein a node in said at least one production node is adjusting said source clock using a reference source clock and the at least one common network offset received from said receiving node (DiLorenzo paragraph 43; Beardsley paragraph 16, 40-41 and 44-46).
Regarding claim 12, DiLorenzo and Beardsley disclose the method according to claim 9, further comprising adjusting time of said source clock to provide frame start alignment with respect to frame start of locally/ studio generated data streams (DiLorenzo paragraph 43; Beardsley paragraph 16, 40-41 and 44-46).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 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.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421