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 response filed on 07/01/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 16, 18 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1, the applicant argued that Scurrell does not teach or suggest limiting content sharing based on a predetermined number of devices sharing content, nor is Scurrell concerned with preserving network capacity through congestion management.
Similarly, Chan addresses RF signal thresholds for transmission modes but does
not teach limiting serial delivery based on device congestion thresholds. Belleguie further fails to overcome the deficiencies as it relates to synchronization mechanisms for multimedia content but similarly does not teach or suggest the congestion-based limitation recited in amended claim 1.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. As shown in Fig.1-3, newly added Matiash clearly discloses that the system is restricting/limiting the shared content when a predetermined number of the user devices/particular users e.g., invitees to the event/explicit invitees, friends of invitees, users who heard about or stumbled upon the event, etc., invitees that actually attended the event and/or met an exemption requirement, etc. at the event who are sharing the content since a sub-geofence allows users to attend the event and share content via the sub-geofence is advantageous and it also allows users of the sub-geofence to push some relevant content up to the other attendees within the main-geofence while preserving other relevant content for just those users who are within the sub-geofence, whereby modems, cable modems and Ethernet cards i.e., serially deliver the shared content are just a few of the currently available types of network adapters (see Matiash, Fig.1-3 Col 10 lines 4-14, Fig.7 Col 22 lines 35-42 and Fig.1-3&11 Col 29 lines 26-31).
Additionally, Scurrell discloses a method for sparing bandwidth/preserving network capacity in a network and repeating synchronization using the event protocol among the multiple media devices/multiple personal consumer devices to serially captured by each of the media devices at the event since a serial communication device e.g., an RS-232 port and/or a wireless interface device e.g., a 802.9 card and an Ethernet card are serially delivering the media content (see Scurrell, Fig.1 [0035], Fig.1 [0094] and Fig.1&20A-C [0099][0101]).
Claim 16, Applicant make arguments the same argument as in claim 1. Please see the above for examiner’s response.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding Claim 1, the applicant further argued that Applicant submits that there is no motivation to combine the cited references to arrive at the feature of limiting serial delivery when a predetermined number of user devices are sharing content. None of the cited references are concerned with network capacity preservation through congestion management, and thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to modify the teachings of Scurrell, Chan, or Belleguie to include such a limitation.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. As shown in Fig.1, Scurrell clearly discloses that base station 11 is configured to provide timecode, genlock, metadata or a combination thereof to the media devices/personal devices 141, 121 and 131, professional cameras 146&152 and personal camera 150 over a radio frequency (RF) network e.g., a BLINK network 107 via the wireless network system at an event; detecting/identifying a personal device e.g., a mobile phone/a first user device can request timecode and/or genlock information i.e., requested content over a connection based on RF signal received from other devices e.g., cameras, sound devices and lens deices/the user devices at the event over the BLINK network 107; identifying other personal devices/second user device that is in range/within a predetermined distance from a master personal device i.e., the first user device and is in range/within Wi-Fi and/or Bluetooth and the BLINK network i.e., a predetermined radio frequency (RF) condition; requesting a download of the content by the client device and also requested by the master personal device i.e., first user device; synchronizing the master personal device/first user device and the other devices/second user device using an event protocol, and synchronizing helps/ allows the other devices/second user device streamlines ‘share’ media content from the master personal device/first user device; transmitting the media content to the each of the media devices/other personal devices/second user device e.g., synchronization of the media content captured by each of the personal consumer devices at the event; and repeating synchronization using the event protocol among the multiple media devices/multiple personal consumer devices to serially captured by each of the media devices at the event, a serial communication device e.g., an RS-232 port and/or a wireless interface device e.g., a 802.9 card and an Ethernet card i.e., serially deliver the media content, inherently implied (see Scurrell, Fig.1&20A-C [0099][0101]). Therefore, a serial communication device e.g., an RS-232 port and/or a wireless interface device e.g., a 802.9 card and an Ethernet card i.e., serially deliver the media content inasmuch sharing media content e.g., in a cloud-based-platform with other users e.g., friends, users, strangers at the same event of Scurrell would be motivated to combine the teachings of Matiash occurs in accordance with the event definition which restricts access to the shared content to particular users, e.g., invitees to the event/ explicit invitees, friends of invitees, users who heard about or stumbled upon the event, etc., invitees that actually attended the event and/or met an exemption requirement, etc. the social network application 122 may limit sharing of the shared content accordingly and, modems, cable modems and Ethernet cards i.e., serially deliver the shared content are just a few of the currently available types of network adapters (see Scurrell, Fig.1&10 [0077]-[0078], Fig.18-19 [0094] and Fig.1&20A-C [0099][0101]).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been beneficial to use the event definition which restricts access to the shared content to particular users, (e.g., invitees to the event (explicit invitees, friends of invitees, users who heard about or stumbled upon the event, etc., invitees that actually attended the event and/or met an exemption requirement, etc.) the social network application 122 may limit sharing of the shared content accordingly and, modems, cable modems and Ethernet cards i.e., serially deliver the shared content are just a few of the currently available types of network adapters as taught by Matiash to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell, Chan and Belleguie incorporate to provide a virtual social network for allowing users to interact and exchange information. (Matiash, Fig.1-2 Col 4 lines 64-67, Fig.1-3 Col 10 lines 4-14, Fig.7 Col 22 lines 35-42 and Fig.1-3&11 Col 29 lines 26-31) .
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 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, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scurrell et al. [hereinafter as Scurrell], US 2019/0037018 A1 in view of Chan et al. [hereinafter as Chan], US 2012/0057476 A1 in view of Belleguie [hereinafter as Belleguie], US 2008/0244640 A1 further in view of Matiash et al. [hereinafter as Matiash], US 10,257,291 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Scurrell discloses wherein a method for preserving network capacity in a network (Fig.1 [0035], a method for sparing bandwidth/preserving network capacity in a network and Fig.1 [0094], network capacity), the method comprising:
monitoring radio frequency (RF) signal conditions for user devices at an event (Fig.1 [0036], base station 11 is configured to provide timecode, genlock, metadata or a combination thereof to the media devices/personal devices 141, 121 and 131, professional cameras 146&152 and personal camera 150 over a radio frequency (RF) network e.g., a BLINK network 107 via the wireless network system at an event; Fig.1 [0034]);
based on RF signal condition reports sent by the user devices at the event, identifying a first user device that has requested content (Fig.1&16 [0087], detecting/identifying a personal device e.g., a mobile phone i.e., a first user device can request timecode and/or genlock information i.e., requested content over a connection and Fig.1&5 [0070], based on RF signal received from other devices e.g., cameras, sound devices and lens deices/the user devices at the event over the BLINK network 107);
identifying a second user device that is within a predetermined distance from the first user device and is within a predetermined radio frequency (RF) condition and that is requesting a download of the content also requested by the first user device (Fig.1&10 [0076], identifying other personal devices i.e., second user device that is in range/within a predetermined distance from a master personal device i.e., the first user device and is in range/within Wi-Fi and/or Bluetooth and the BLINK network i.e., a predetermined radio frequency (RF) condition; Fig.1&20A-C [0123] and Fig.11&20A-C [0079][0102], requesting a download of the content by the client device and also requested by the master personal device i.e., first user device);
synchronizing the first user device and the second user device using an event protocol, wherein the synchronizing allows the second user device to receive the content from the first user device (Fig.1&10 [0076]-[0077], synchronizing the master personal device i.e., first user device and the other devices i.e., second user device using an event protocol, and the synchronizing helps/allows the other devices i.e., second user device streamlines ‘share’ media content from the master personal device i.e., first user device and Fig.1&20A-C [0099][0101], synchronization between the multiple personal consumer devices over a BLE network, including synchronization of the media content captured by each of personal consumer devices at the event i.e., the second user device to receive the content from the first user device);
transmitting, to the second user device, the content from the first user device (Fig.1&20 A-C [0101][0106], transmitting the media content to the each of the media devices/other personal devices/second user device e.g., synchronization of the media content captured by each of the personal consumer devices at the event and Fig.1&10 [0077]-[0078], sharing media content e.g., in a cloud-based-platform with other users e.g., friends, users, strangers at the same event and Fig.1&20A-C [0122], the master personal device i.e., first user device is transmitting the media file/ timecode data content to the one or more personal media devices/other personal devices i.e., second user device); and
repeating the synchronizing using the event protocol with successive user devices to serially deliver the content to the successive user devices at the event (Fig.1&20A-C [0099][0101], repeating the synchronization using the event protocol among the multiple media devices/multiple personal consumer devices to serially captured by each of the media devices at the event, Noted: Fig.18-19 [0094] a serial communication device e.g., an RS-232 port and/or a wireless interface device e.g., a 802.9 card and an Ethernet card i.e., serially deliver the media content, inherently implied and Fig.20A-C [0106][0110], repeating the synchronization e.g., a “closed-loop” of wireless short-range sync and metadata exchange to ensure all device clocks are “pseudo” synced together using the event protocol among the multiple media devices/multiple personal consumer devices and Fig.1&10 [0076]-[0077], synchronizing helps/allows the other devices i.e., second user device streamlines ‘share’ media content from the master personal device i.e., first user device).
However, Scurrell does not explicitly disclose that has the RF signal conditions above a threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Chan teaches wherein that has the RF signal conditions above a threshold (Fig.1-3 [0031][0047]-[0048], the RF signal conditions e.g., above a threshold value, base station 120 is assigning an uplink transmission mode for M2M client devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell incorporate the teaching of Chan in order to provide for improving latency for poor RF conditions.
It would have been beneficial to base station 120 which is assigning an uplink transmission mode for M2M client devices and a RF signal conditions e.g., above a threshold value as taught by Chan to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell incorporate to provide for improving the system efficiency. (Chan, Fig.1-3 [0031][0047]-[0048] and Fig.3 [0056])
Even though Scurrell and Chan disclose wherein repeating the synchronizing using the event protocol with successive user devices to serially deliver the content to the successive user devices at the event, in the same field of endeavor, Belleguie teaches wherein repeating the synchronizing using the event protocol with successive user devices to serially deliver the content to the successive user devices at the event (Fig.1&5 [0036], the synchronization mechanism 500 for repeating the synchronizing using the event protocol with user devices to deliver the content to the wireless user devices in the events and Fig.11 [0062], wireless devices using an IEEE 1394 serial port).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell and Chan incorporate the teaching of Belleguie in order to provide for composing higher-level events from a set of events and/or data.
It would have been beneficial to use the synchronization mechanism 500 for repeating synchronizing using the event protocol with user devices to deliver the content to the wireless user devices in the events and, wireless devices using an IEEE 1394 serial port as taught by Belleguie to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell and Chan incorporate to provide for enhancing the viewer watching experience by linking multi-media contents with linear news programs. (Belleguie, Fig.1&5 [0036], Fig.8 [0045] and Fig.11 [0062])
Even though Scurrell, Chan and Belleguie disclose wherein repeating synchronization using the event protocol among the multiple media devices/multiple personal consumer devices to serially captured by each of the media devices at the event, a serial communication device e.g., an RS-232 port and/or a wireless interface device e.g., a 802.9 card and an Ethernet card that serially deliver the media content, in the same field of endeavor, Matiash teaches wherein serial delivery of the content is limited when a predetermined number of the user devices at the event are sharing the content (Fig.1-3 Col 10 lines 4-14, restricting/limiting the shared content when a predetermined number of the user devices/particular users e.g., invitees to the event/explicit invitees, friends of invitees, users who heard about or stumbled upon the event, etc., invitees that actually attended the event and/or met an exemption requirement, etc. at the event are sharing the content and Fig.7 Col 22 lines 35-42, preserving other relevant content for just those users who are within the sub-geofence and Fig.1-3&11 Col 29 lines 26-31, modems, cable modems and Ethernet cards i.e., serially deliver the shared content are just a few of the currently available types of network adapters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell, Chan and Belleguie incorporate the teaching of Matiash in order to provide for achieving event-based content sharing using geofencing.
It would have been beneficial to use the event definition which restricts access to the shared content to particular users, (e.g., invitees to the event (explicit invitees, friends of invitees, users who heard about or stumbled upon the event, etc., invitees that actually attended the event and/or met an exemption requirement, etc.) the social network application 122 may limit sharing of the shared content accordingly and, modems, cable modems and Ethernet cards i.e., serially deliver the shared content are just a few of the currently available types of network adapters as taught by Matiash to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell, Chan and Belleguie incorporate to provide a virtual social network for allowing users to interact and exchange information. (Matiash, Fig.1-2 Col 4 lines 64-67, Fig.1-3 Col 10 lines 4-14, Fig.7 Col 22 lines 35-42 and Fig.1-3&11 Col 29 lines 26-31)
Regarding claim 16, Scurrell discloses wherein a non-transitory computer storage media storing computer-usable instructions that, when used by one or more processors, cause the processor to (Fig.18 [0092][0094], a non-transitory computer storage media storing computer-usable instructions that, when used by one or more processors 810, cause the processor 810 to):
monitor radio frequency (RF) signal conditions for user devices at an event (Fig.1 [0036], base station 11 is configured to provide timecode, genlock, metadata or a combination thereof to the media devices/personal devices 141, 121 and 131, professional cameras 146&152 and personal camera 150 over a radio frequency (RF) network e.g., a BLINK network 107 via the wireless network system at an event; Fig.1 [0034]);
based on RF signal condition reports sent by the user devices at the event, identifying a first user device that has requested content (Fig.1&16 [0087], detecting/identifying a personal device e.g., a mobile phone i.e., a first user device can request timecode and/or genlock information i.e., requested content over a connection and Fig.1&5 [0070], based on RF signal received from other devices e.g., cameras, sound devices and lens deices/the user devices at the event over the BLINK network 107);
identify a second user device that is within a predetermined distance from the first user device and is within predetermined RF conditions and that is requesting a download of the content also requested by the first user device (Fig.1&10 [0076], identifying other personal devices i.e., second user device that is in range/within a predetermined distance from a master personal device i.e., the first user device and is in range/within Wi-Fi and/or Bluetooth and the BLINK network i.e., a predetermined radio frequency (RF) condition; Fig.1&20A-C [0123] and Fig.11&20A-C [0079][0102], requesting a download of the content by the client device and also requested by the master personal device i.e., first user device);
synchronize the first user device and the second user device using an event protocol, wherein the synchronizing allows the second user device to receive the content from the first user device (Fig.1&10 [0076]-[0077], synchronizing the master personal device i.e., first user device and the other devices i.e., second user device using an event protocol, and the synchronizing helps/allows the other devices i.e., second user device streamlines ‘share’ media content from the master personal device i.e., first user device and Fig.1&20A-C [0099][0101], synchronization between the multiple personal consumer devices over a BLE network, including synchronization of the media content captured by each of personal consumer devices at the event i.e., the second user device to receive the content from the first user device);
transmit to the second user device, the content from the first user device (Fig.1&20A-C [0101][0106], transmitting the media content to the each of the media devices/other personal devices/second user device e.g., synchronization of the media content captured by each of the personal consumer devices at the event and Fig.1&10 [0077]-[0078], sharing media content e.g., in a cloud-based-platform with other users e.g., friends, users, strangers at the same event and Fig.1&20A-C [0122], the master personal device i.e., first user device is transmitting the media file/ timecode data content to the one or more personal media devices/other personal devices i.e., second user device); and
repeating the synchronizing using the event protocol with successive user devices to serially deliver the content to the successive user devices at the event (Fig.1&20A-C [0099][0101], repeating the synchronization using the event protocol among the multiple media devices/multiple personal consumer devices to serially captured by each of the media devices at the event, Noted: Fig.18-19 [0094] a serial communication device e.g., an RS-232 port and/or a wireless interface device e.g., a 802.9 card and an Ethernet card i.e., serially deliver the media content, inherently implied and Fig.20A-C [0106][0110], repeating the synchronization e.g., a “closed-loop” of wireless short-range sync and metadata exchange to ensure all device clocks are “pseudo” synced together using the event protocol among the multiple media devices/multiple personal consumer devices and Fig.1&10 [0076]-[0077], synchronizing helps/allows the other devices i.e., second user device streamlines ‘share’ media content from the master personal device i.e., first user device).
However, Scurrell does not explicitly disclose that has the RF signal conditions above a threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Chan teaches wherein that has the RF signal conditions above a threshold (Fig.1-3 [0031][0047]-[0048], the RF signal conditions e.g., above a threshold value, base station 120 is assigning an uplink transmission mode for M2M client devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell incorporate the teaching of Chan in order to provide for improving latency for poor RF conditions.
It would have been beneficial to use base station 120 which is assigning an uplink transmission mode for M2M client devices and a RF signal conditions e.g., above a threshold value as taught by Chan to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell incorporate to provide for improving efficiency. (Chan, Fig.1-3 [0031][0047]-[0048] and Fig.3 [0056])
Even though Scurrell and Chan disclose wherein repeating the synchronizing using the event protocol with successive user devices to serially deliver the content to the successive user devices at the event, in the same field of endeavor, Belleguie teaches wherein repeating the synchronizing using the event protocol with successive user devices to serially deliver the content to the successive user devices at the event (Fig.1&5 [0036], the synchronization mechanism 500 for repeating the synchronizing using the event protocol with user devices to deliver the content to the wireless user devices in the events and Fig.11 [0062], wireless devices using an IEEE 1394 serial port).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell and Chan incorporate the teaching of Belleguie in order to provide for composing higher-level events from a set of events and/or data.
It would have been beneficial to use the synchronization mechanism 500 for repeating synchronizing using the event protocol with user devices to deliver the content to the wireless user devices in the events and, wireless devices using an IEEE 1394 serial port as taught by Belleguie to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell and Chan incorporate to provide for enhancing the viewer watching experience by linking multi-media contents with linear news programs. (Belleguie, Fig.1&5 [0036], Fig.8 [0045] and Fig.11 [0062])
Even though Scurrell, Chan and Belleguie disclose wherein repeating synchronization using the event protocol among the multiple media devices/multiple personal consumer devices to serially captured by each of the media devices at the event, a serial communication device e.g., an RS-232 port and/or a wireless interface device e.g., a 802.9 card and an Ethernet card that serially deliver the media content, in the same field of endeavor, Matiash teaches wherein serial delivery of the content is limited when a predetermined number of the user devices at the event are sharing the content (Fig.1-3 Col 10 lines 4-14, restricting/limiting the shared content when a predetermined number of the user devices/particular users e.g., invitees to the event/ explicit invitees, friends of invitees, users who heard about or stumbled upon the event, etc., invitees that actually attended the event and/or met an exemption requirement, etc. at the event are sharing the content and Fig.7 Col 22 lines 35-42, preserving other relevant content for just those users who are within the sub-geofence and Fig.1-3&11 Col 29 lines 26-31, modems, cable modems and Ethernet cards i.e., serially deliver the shared content are just a few of the currently available types of network adapters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell, Chan and Belleguie incorporate the teaching of Matiash in order to provide for achieving event-based content sharing using geofencing.
It would have been beneficial to use the event definition which restricts access to the shared content to particular users, (e.g., invitees to the event (explicit invitees, friends of invitees, users who heard about or stumbled upon the event, etc., invitees that actually attended the event and/or met an exemption requirement, etc.) the social network application 122 may limit sharing of the shared content accordingly and, modems, cable modems and Ethernet cards i.e., serially deliver the shared content are just a few of the currently available types of network adapters as taught by Matiash to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell, Chan and Belleguie incorporate to provide a virtual social network for allowing users to interact and exchange information. (Matiash, Fig.1-2 Col 4 lines 64-67, Fig.1-3 Col 10 lines 4-14, Fig.7 Col 22 lines 35-42 and Fig.1-3&11 Col 29 lines 26-31)
Regarding claim 20, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash disclose all the elements of claim 16 as stated above wherein Scurrell further discloses the content is related to the event (Fig.1 [0034], the media content is related to the event; Fig.10 [0077], Fig.20A-C [0099]).
Claims 2, 3 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scurrell et al. [hereinafter as Scurrell], US 2019/0037018 A1 in view of Chan et al. [hereinafter as Chan], US 2012/0057476 A1 in view of Belleguie [hereinafter as Belleguie], US 2008/0244640 A1 in view of Matiash et al. [hereinafter as Matiash], US 10,257,291 A1 further in view of Finkelman et al. [hereinafter as Finkelman], US 2017/0019316 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash disclose all the elements of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash do not explicitly disclose the content is determined using deep packet inspection of the requests made by the first user device and the second user device.
In the same field of endeavor, Finkelman teaches wherein the content is determined using deep packet inspection of the requests made by the first user device and the second user device (Fig.1-3&5 [0031][0034], the content of the requested CS 140 is determined using deep packet inspection (DPI) of the requests made by the first UN 150-1 user device and the second UN 150-2 user device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate the teaching of Finkelman in order to provide for overcoming asymmetrical aspects of routing topologies.
It would have been beneficial to determine the content of the requested CS 140 using deep packet inspection (DPI) of the requests made by the first UN 150-1 user device and the second UN 150-2 user device as taught by Finkelman to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate to provide a higher level of quality of service (Q0S). (Finkelman, Fig.1A-B [0007] and Fig.1-3&5 [0031][0034])
Regarding claim 3, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash disclose all the elements of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash do not explicitly disclose the first user device receives the content over dedicated network resources.
In the same field of endeavor, Finkelman teaches wherein the first user device receives the content over dedicated network resources (Fig.1-3&5 [0036], the UN 150-1/ first user device receives the content over dedicated network resources for the downloading data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate the teaching of Finkelman in order to provide for overcoming asymmetrical aspects of routing topologies.
It would have been beneficial to use the UN 150-1/ first user device which receives the content over dedicated network resources for the downloading data as taught by Finkelman to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate to provide a higher level of quality of service (QoS). (Finkelman, Fig.1A-B [0007] and Fig.1-3&5 [0036])
Regarding claim 17, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash disclose all the elements of claim 16 as stated above.
However, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash do not explicitly disclose the content is determined using deep packet inspection of the requests made by the first user device and the second user device.
In the same field of endeavor, Finkelman teaches wherein the content is determined using deep packet inspection of the requests made by the first user device and the second user device (Fig.1-3&5 [0031][0034], the content of the requested CS 140 is determined using deep packet inspection (DPI) of the requests made by the first UN 150-1 user device and the second UN 150-2 user device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate the teaching of Finkelman in order to provide for overcoming asymmetrical aspects of routing topologies.
It would have been beneficial to determine the content of the requested CS 140 using deep packet inspection (DPI) of the requests made by the first UN 150-1 user device and the second UN 150-2 user device as taught by Finkelman to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate to provide a higher level of quality of service (Q0S). (Finkelman, Fig.1A-B [0007] and Fig.1-3&5 [0031][0034])
Regarding claim 18, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash disclose all the elements of claim 17 as stated above.
However, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash do not explicitly disclose the first user device receives the content over dedicated network resources.
In the same field of endeavor, Finkelman teaches wherein the first user device receives the content over dedicated network resources (Fig.1-3&5 [0036], the UN 150-1/ first user device receives the content over dedicated network resources for the downloading data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate the teaching of Finkelman in order to provide for overcoming asymmetrical aspects of routing topologies.
It would have been beneficial to use the UN 150-1/ first user device which receives the content over dedicated network resources for the downloading data as taught by Finkelman to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate to provide a higher level of quality of service (QoS). (Finkelman, Fig.1A-B [0007] and Fig.1-3&5 [0036])
Claims 4, 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scurrell et al. [hereinafter as Scurrell], US 2019/0037018 A1 in view of Chan et al. [hereinafter as Chan], US 2012/0057476 A1 in view of Belleguie [hereinafter as Belleguie], US 2008/0244640 A1 in view of Matiash et al. [hereinafter as Matiash], US 10,257,291 A1 further in view of Khambete et al. [hereinafter as Khambete], US 8,660,539 B2.
Regarding claim 4, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash disclose all the elements of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash do not explicitly disclose synchronizing the first user device and the second user device occurs for a duration of a download of the content.
In the same field of endeavor, Khambete teaches wherein synchronizing the first user device and the second user device occurs for a duration of the download of the content (Fig.28 Col 43 lines 45-54, synchronizing the mobile clients e.g., first user device and the second user device occurs for a time of content download i.e., duration of the download of the content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate the teaching of Khambete in order to achieve a wide dissemination of the content.
It would have been beneficial to synchronize the mobile clients e.g., first user device and the second user device occurs for a time of content download i.e., duration of the download of the content as taught by Khambete to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate to improve the user experience. (Khambete, Fig.1A-B Col 5 lines 29-33 and Fig.28 Col 43 lines 45-54)
Regarding claim 5, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie, Matiash and Khambete disclose all the elements of claim 4 as stated above wherein Khambete further discloses the duration of synchronization is a duration of the event (Fig.27 Col 41 lines 11-15, the time of sync/synchronization for the mobile phones is a duration of the event; Fig.6 Col 18 lines 41-56).
Regarding claim 19, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash disclose all the elements of claim 16 as stated above.
However, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash do not explicitly disclose synchronize the first user device and the second user device occurs for a duration of the download of the content.
In the same field of endeavor, Khambete teaches wherein synchronize the first user device and the second user device occurs for a duration of the download of the content (Fig.28 Col 43 lines 45-54, synchronizing the mobile clients e.g., first user device and the second user device occurs for a time of content download i.e., duration of the download of the content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate the teaching of Khambete in order to achieve a wide dissemination of the content.
It would have been beneficial to synchronize the mobile clients e.g., first user device and the second user device occurs for a time of content download i.e., duration of a download of the content as taught by Khambete to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate to improve the user experience. (Khambete, Fig.1A-B Col 5 lines 29-33 and Fig.28 Col 43 lines 45-54)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scurrell et al. [hereinafter as Scurrell], US 2019/0037018 A1 in view of Chan et al. [hereinafter as Chan], US 2012/0057476 A1 in view of Belleguie [hereinafter as Belleguie], US 2008/0244640 A1 in view of Matiash et al. [hereinafter as Matiash], US 10,257,291 A1 further in view of Park et al. [hereinafter as Park], US 2017/0094442 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash disclose all the elements of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash do not explicitly disclose terminating the download of the content when requested by the first user device.
In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches wherein terminating the download of the content when requested by the first user device (Fig.1-2 [0072], stopping/terminating the download of the content, content navigation or content like registration according to a content request when requested by the user device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate the teaching of Park in order to improve the user convenience to use the content.
It would have been beneficial to stop/terminate the download of the content, content navigation or content like registration according to a content request when requested by the user device as taught by Park to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate to improve the usability, convenience, accessibility and competitiveness. (Park, Fig.1-2 [0072] and Fig.13 [0192])
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scurrell et al. [hereinafter as Scurrell], US 2019/0037018 A1 in view of Chan et al. [hereinafter as Chan], US 2012/0057476 A1 in view of Belleguie [hereinafter as Belleguie], US 2008/0244640 A1 in view of Matiash et al. [hereinafter as Matiash], US 10,257,291 A1 further in view of Leung et al. [hereinafter as Leung], US 9870554 B1.
Regarding claim 7, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash disclose all the elements of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash do not explicitly disclose the event is one of a recurring series of events.
In the same field of endeavor, Leung teaches wherein the event is one of a recurring series of events (Fig.1-3 Col 5 lines 27-45, the event is one of a recurring series in a recurring series of meeting events).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate the teaching of Leung in order to provide for prioritizing and managing documents based on information gathered from a user’s calendar.
It would have been beneficial to use the event which is one of a recurring series in a recurring series of meeting events as taught by Leung to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate to achieve advantages in speed and efficiency. (Leung, Fig.2 Col 3 lines 47-54 and Fig.1-3 Col 5 lines 27-45)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scurrell et al. [hereinafter as Scurrell], US 2019/0037018 A1 in view of Chan et al. [hereinafter as Chan], US 2012/0057476 A1 in view of Belleguie [hereinafter as Belleguie], US 2008/0244640 A1 in view of Matiash et al. [hereinafter as Matiash], US 10,257,291 A1 further in view of Rahman et al. [hereinafter as Rahman], US 2018/0054655 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash disclose all the elements of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash do not explicitly disclose the content is limited to network subscribers.
In the same field of endeavor, Rahman teaches wherein the content is limited to network subscribers (Fig.1 [0015], the common content is limited to one set of subscriber data of the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate the teaching of Rahman in order to provide the operational data to a media provider network.
It would have been beneficial to use the content which is limited to one set of subscriber data of the network as taught by Rahman to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate to provide services such as video monitoring, door lock control and occupancy sensing services. (Rahman, Fig.1 [0015] and Fig.1-2 [0017])
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scurrell et al. [hereinafter as Scurrell], US 2019/0037018 A1 in view of Chan et al. [hereinafter as Chan], US 2012/0057476 A1 in view of Belleguie [hereinafter as Belleguie], US 2008/0244640 A1 further in view of Learmonth [hereinafter as Learmonth], US 2004/0243749 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash disclose all the elements of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash do not explicitly disclose the event protocol comprises handshaking operations between the first user device and the second user device.
In the same field of endeavor, Learmonth teaches wherein the event protocol comprises handshaking operations between the first user device and the second user device (Fig.1 [0010], the event protocol comprises handshaking operations between the user devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate the teaching of Learmonth in order to provide a quick save system.
It would have been beneficial to use the event protocol which comprises handshaking operations between the user devices as taught by Learmonth to have incorporated in the system of Scurrell, Chan, Belleguie and Matiash incorporate to provide a USB mass storage device event protocol positioned between the computer and the reader. (Learmonth, Fig.1 [0006] and Fig.1 [0010])
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANNEILIAN LALCHINTHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571) 272-7884. 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.
/V.L/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights