Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
This is a Non-Final Action.
The current application filed August 2, 2023 is a continuation reissue application of reissue application 15/594,612 (U.S. Patent No. RE50,398 issued April 22, 2025), both of which are reissue applications of 12/738,080 (U.S. Patent No. 9,185,151 issued November 10, 2015, hereinafter “the ‘151 patent”).
Claims 1-24 were initially pending in the application. By way of the preliminary amendment claims 1-24 were cancelled and claims 25-66 were added, claim 25 is an independent claim. The amendment has been entered and made of record.
Reissue
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 9,185,151 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Reissue Declaration
Claim 25-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being improperly broadened in a reissue application made and sworn to by the assignee. The application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest only if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or, for reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest under 37 CFR 1.46.
A claim is broader in scope than the original claims if it contains within its scope any conceivable product or process which would not have infringed the original patent. A claim is broadened if it is broader in any one respect even though it may be narrower in other respects. The error statement found in the reissue oath/declaration confirms that the applicant is intentionally broadening claims.
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is additionally defective because the error which is relied upon to support the reissue application is not an error upon which a reissue can be based (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414). As explained below in reference to the rejection in view of impermissible recapture, the error on which the reissue is based on according to the declaration is not an error upon which reissue can be based because it amounts to impermissible recapture.
Claims 25-66 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on August 2, 2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to because it is not proper. The specification is not compliant with 37 C.F.R. 1.177(a), which states:
(a) The Office may reissue a patent as multiple reissue patents. If applicant files more than one application for the reissue of a single patent, each such application must contain or be amended to contain in the first sentence of the specification a notice stating that more than one reissue application has been filed and identifying each of the reissue applications by relationship, application number and filing date. The Office may correct by certificate of correction under § 1.322 any reissue patent resulting from an application to which this paragraph applies that does not contain the required notice.
Proper correction is required.
Application Data Sheet (ADS)
The Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed on August 2, 2023 is defective because the “Domestic Priority Information” section contains errors. The current application must be listed as both a reissue of the original patent and a continuation of the parent reissue application. The examiner has provided a proper example of how the domestic benefit information should be presented in an ADS:
PNG
media_image1.png
400
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
288
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Proper correction by filing a new ADS is required. Additionally, in order to guarantee that a benefit claim is recognized applicant must file a Request for a Corrected Filing Receipt concurrent to the filing of the proper ADS.
If applicant receives a filing receipt with missing or incorrect benefit claim information, applicant may request a corrected filing receipt. The Office will not grant a request for a corrected filing receipt to include a benefit claim unless the proper reference to the prior application is included (i) in an ADS (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or (ii) in the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS (for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012) within the time period required by 37 CFR 1.78 with a few exceptions. See MPEP § 211.03. If the proper reference was previously submitted in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, the request for a corrected filing receipt should indicate that the reference was properly and timely made in the ADS. If the proper reference was previously submitted in an application filed prior to September 16, 2012, the request for a corrected filing receipt should indicate that the reference was properly and timely made and where such reference is located (i.e., the specification, an amendment to the specification, or an ADS). The Office plans to notify applicants on or with the filing receipt that a benefit claim may not have been recognized because the benefit claim was improper but applicants are advised that only the benefit claims that are listed on the filing receipt have been recognized by the Office. Therefore, applicants should carefully and promptly review their filing receipts in order to avoid the need for a petition (37 CFR 1.78) and the petition fee. (MPEP § 211.02(a))
Claim Rejections – Res Judicata
Claims 25 and 50-54 are rejected on the grounds of Res Judicata based on a prior adjudication against the inventor (see PTAB decision mailed on December 1, 2022 in application no. 15/594,612, affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 29 and 54-58) on patentably nondistinct claims involving the same issues. The period for filing an appeal of this decision has expired (see 37 CFR 90.3(a)(1)).
PNG
media_image3.png
94
560
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 25 and 50-54 of the current application are not patentably distinct from previously appealed claims 29 and 54-58 of application no. 15/594,612.
Thus, claims as filed 25 and 50-54 are rejected on the grounds of Res Judicata based on a prior adjudication against the inventor on patentably nondistinct claims involving the same issues, in effect barring the examiner from issuing these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 25-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
It is noted that the following is the three step test for determining recapture in reissue applications (see: MPEP 1412.02(II)):
“(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.”
(Step 1: MPEP 1412.02(II)(A)) In the instant case and by way of the preliminary amendment, Applicant seeks to broaden independent claim 1 and/or independent claims 15 and 24 with the addition of claim 25 in this reissue at least by deleting/omitting the patent claim language requiring that the apparatus includes (using claim 1 as example) “the device further comprising: an appliance specific media stream generator adapted to derive from a first multicast media stream one or more uni-cast media streams or a second multicast media stream, wherein the device is further adapted to track a status of the derived one or more uni-cast media streams or the derived second multicast media stream” and “wherein a delay time for the delayed version of the requested media stream is determined to reduce zap-time associated with presenting the requested IP media stream at the media presentation appliance at least partly based on a timing parameter of the request received from the media presentation appliance,” of claim 1.
(Step 2: MPEP 1412.02(II)(B)) The record of the prior 12/738,080 application prosecution indicates that in the Amendment filed October 8, 2014, claim 1 was amended to include the language, “wherein a delay time for the delayed version of the requested media stream is determined to reduce zap-time associated with presenting the requested IP media stream at the media presentation appliance at least partly based on a timing parameter of the request received from the media presentation appliance,” Additionally, in the Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed on October 8, 2014, Applicant argued in an attempt to overcome the applied prior art references that none of the references teach or suggest the limitations that were added in said amendment.
PNG
media_image4.png
194
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
...
PNG
media_image5.png
74
631
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(pages 9 and 10 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed 10/8/2014 in application 12/738,080)
Additionally, in the Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed on May 22, 2015, Applicant argued in an attempt to overcome the applied prior art references that none of the references teach or suggest the limitations that were added in said amendment.
PNG
media_image6.png
295
636
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(pages 15 and 16 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed 5/22/2015 in application 12/738,080)
Thus, this limitation is considered to be a surrender-generating limitation.
The record of the prior 12/738,080 application prosecution also indicates that in the Amendment filed May 22, 2015, claim 1 was amended to include the language, “wherein content in the unicast appliance specific version of the requested media stream is substantially identical to content in the multicast appliance specific version of the requested media stream” Additionally, in the Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed on May 22, 2015, Applicant argued in an attempt to overcome the applied prior art references that none of the references teach or suggest the limitations that were added in said amendment.
PNG
media_image7.png
218
624
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(pages 16 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed 5/22/2015 in application 12/738,080)
Thus, as previously stated this limitation is considered to be a surrender-generating limitation.
Additionally, the record of the prior 12/738,080 application prosecution indicates that an examiner’s amendment was mailed June 30, 2015 in order to overcome the prior art rejections, which added the following language to the independent claims (using claim 1 as example), “the device further comprising: an appliance specific media stream generator adapted to derive from a first multicast media stream one or more uni-cast media streams or a second multicast media stream, wherein the device is further adapted to track a status of the derived one or more uni-cast media streams or the derived second multicast media stream.” As can be seen in the mailed correspondence, William P. O’Sullivan (Reg. No. 59,005) authorized said examiner’s amendment. Thus, as previously stated this limitation is considered to be a surrender-generating limitation.
Subject matter is previously surrendered during the prosecution of the original application by reliance on an argument/statement made by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art. Additionally, Reissue recapture applies to related family member applications (See MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 94 USPQ2d 1598 at 1606 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2010) (a more limited recapture rule would undercut “the rule against recapture’s public-reliance rationale” and a patent family’s entire prosecution history should be reviewed “when applying both the rule against recapture and prosecution history estoppel.”)). It is noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application and the patent family's prosecution for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. Therefore, in the instant case the omission of the surrender-generating limitations requiring that the apparatus include “the device further comprising: an appliance specific media stream generator adapted to derive from a first multicast media stream one or more uni-cast media streams or a second multicast media stream, wherein the device is further adapted to track a status of the derived one or more uni-cast media streams or the derived second multicast media stream” and “wherein a delay time for the delayed version of the requested media stream is determined to reduce zap-time associated with presenting the requested IP media stream at the media presentation appliance at least partly based on a timing parameter of the request received from the media presentation appliance,” equates to attempting to recapture surrendered subject matter and thus by omission some of the broadening of the reissue claims, as noted above, are clearly in the area of the surrendered subject matter.
(Step 3: MPEP 1412.02(II)(C)) It must be determined whether the reissue claim omits or broadens any limitation that was added/argued during the original prosecution to overcome an art rejection. Such an omission in a reissue claim, even if it includes other limitations making the reissue claim narrower than the patent claim in other aspects, is impermissible recapture. Pannu , 258 F.3d at 1371-72, 59 USPQ2d at 1600. Simply stated, claims 25-66 omit the language requiring “the device further comprising: an appliance specific media stream generator adapted to derive from a first multicast media stream one or more uni-cast media streams or a second multicast media stream, wherein the device is further adapted to track a status of the derived one or more uni-cast media streams or the derived second multicast media stream” (emphasis added) and “wherein a delay time for the delayed version of the requested media stream is determined to reduce zap-time associated with presenting the requested IP media stream at the media presentation appliance at least partly based on a timing parameter of the request received from the media presentation appliance,” and thus would amount to impermissible recapture due to the omission of surrender-generating limitations. Additionally, reissue claims 25-66 are not materially narrowed in other respects that relate to the surrendered subject matter to avoid said impermissible recapture.
Therefore, impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application is clearly present in the instant reissue application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 45 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 45 and 47 recites “the received media stream” and “the multicast or the unicast media stream”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Thus, it is unclear what specific element from claim 25 these claims are referring to. Examiner recommends using the language from claim 25 (“the input multicast media stream”, “the first multicast media stream”, and/or “the first unicast media stream”) to specify which specific media stream these claims are referring to. Proper correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 25, 30-37, 39, 40, 42-46, 48-50, 55-59, 62, and 63 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fritsch (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0124258, published September 5, 2002) in view of Jabri et al. (hereinafter Jabri, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0059647, effectively filed March 12, 2003).
Regarding independent claim 25, Fritsch discloses a device for providing content to multiple media presentation appliances over an Internet Protocol (IP) network, the device comprising: an input port for receiving an input multicast media stream that includes a content; (paragraphs [0033] and [0039] of Fritsch)
a generator for deriving from the input multicast media stream a first unicast media stream addressed to, and suitable to be received and presented by, one of the multiple media presentation appliances, and a first multicast media stream addressed to, and suitable to be received and presented by, at least two of multiple media presentation appliances; and (paragraphs [0033]-[0034] of Fritsch)
an output port for transmitting the first multicast and the first unicast media streams to the multiple media presentation appliances over the IP network, (paragraphs [0032]-[0034] of Fritsch),
wherein the content in the first unicast media stream is substantially identical to the content in the first multicast media stream; and (paragraph [0034] of Fritsch)
wherein the device is further adapted to track the status of the derived first unicast media stream or the derived first multicast media stream. (paragraphs [0044]-[0047] and [0050]-[0052] of Fritsch)
Fritsch does not explicitly disclose the device is further configured to de-packetize, and to extract the content from, packets in the input multicast media stream. However, Jabri discloses a device is further configured to de-packetize, and to extract the content from, packets in the input multicast media stream (paragraphs “So the media transport transcoding (translation) consists of circuit-to-packet, packet-to-circuit and packet-to-packet translation of the media bits. When the transport is circuit based, the typically the media bits are multiplexed in a Time Domain Multiplexing (TDM) fashion.” – paragraph [0122], see also paragraphs [0134]-[0136] and Claim 1 of Jabri).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch with the teachings of Jabri because it would have allowed for an efficient way to transcode between different formats in real time (paragraphs [0006]-[0008] of Jabri).
Regarding dependent claim 30, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 25, further operative for receiving an additional input media stream that includes a content, and wherein the generator is operative for deriving from the additional input media stream a second multicast and a second unicast media streams that are suitable to be received and presented by at least part of the multiple media presentation appliances (paragraphs [0031], [0033], and [0050] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 31 Fritsch does not explicitly disclose the device according to claim 30, further comprising an additional output port for transmitting the second multicast and the second unicast media streams to the at least part of the multiple media presentation appliances over the IP network (paragraphs [0037] and [0038] of Fritsch).
However, Jabri discloses multiple logical ports for reception and transmission of media bitstreams which includes specific port numbers for the destination of transcoded bitstreams (such as the second multicast and the second unicast media streams discussed in Fritsch) (paragraphs [0065]-[0067] of Jabri).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch with the teachings of Jabri for the same rationale discussed above regarding independent claim 25. Additionally, the use of multiple output ports and network switches are well known in network communication, thus the use of said multiple output ports and network switches as taught by Jabri with the system of Fritsch would have been a mere application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Regarding dependent claim 32, Fritsch does not explicitly disclose the device according to claim 31, further comprising a switch coupled between the generator and the first and second output ports for switching the derived first multicast, the first unicast, the second multicast, and the second unicast media streams to the IP network.
However, Jabri discloses multiple logical ports for reception and transmission of media bitstreams which includes specific port numbers for the destination of transcoded bitstreams (such as the second multicast and the second unicast media streams discussed in Fritsch) (paragraphs [0065]-[0067] of Jabri), or in other words using multiple output ports for multiple transcoded bitstreams respectively. Jabri also discloses the use of a switch to control the transmission of the multiple transcoded bitstreams (paragraph [0004], [0066], and [0068] of Jabri).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch with the teachings of Jabri for the same rationale discussed above regarding independent claim 25. Additionally, the use of multiple output ports and network switches are well known in network communication, thus the use of said multiple output ports and network switches as taught by Jabri with the system of Fritsch would have been a mere application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Regarding dependent claim 33, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 25, wherein the multiple media presentation appliances include a first media presentation appliance, and wherein the first unicast media stream is transmitted to the first media presentation appliance over the IP network (paragraphs [0032]-[0034] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 34, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 33, for use with a request message from the first media presentation appliance, wherein the device is operative to transmit the first unicast media stream to the first media presentation appliance over the IP network in response to the request message. (paragraph [0034] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 35, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 34, further operative to receive the request message from the first media presentation appliance over the IP network (paragraph [0032] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 36, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 34, wherein the input multicast media stream comprises a one of multiple channels, and wherein the request message comprises identification of the one of the multiple channels, and wherein the output port comprises a broadband connection (paragraphs [0032], [0033], and [0039] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 37, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 36, wherein the channels are television channels (paragraph [0033] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 39, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 25, for use with a group of media presentation appliances that are part of the multiple media presentation appliances, and wherein the first multicast media stream is transmitted to all of the media presentation appliances in the group over the IP network (paragraphs [0032] and [0033] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 40, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 39, further comprising a list of all the media presentation appliances in the group, and wherein the first multicast media stream is transmitted to the all of the media presentation appliances in the list over the IP network (paragraphs [0033], [0050], and [0051] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 42, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 25, wherein the input multicast media stream is an IP packet-based media stream, and wherein the content comprises audio, video, or multimedia (paragraphs [0033] and [0039] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 43, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 25, wherein the content comprises a television content, and wherein the content comprises first media stream, the first multicast media stream, or the first unicast media stream comprises a television channel (paragraphs [0033] and [0039] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 44, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 43, wherein the first media stream, the first multicast media stream, or the first unicast media stream comprises one of multiple television channels (paragraphs [0033] and [0039] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 45, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 25, further comprising a cyclic buffer coupled between the input port and the generator for temporarily storing part of the received media stream (paragraph [0031] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 46, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 25, wherein the input multicast media stream, the first multicast media stream, or the first unicast media stream comprises, is based on, or is according to, Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) MPEG-2, ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) H.264, or Advanced Video Coding (MPEG-4 AVC) standard (paragraph [0039] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 48, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 25, wherein the input multicast media stream comprises IP packets (paragraphs [0031] and [0039] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 49, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 48, wherein the generator is adapted to replicate, replace, or re-address, at least part of the IP packets in the input multicast media stream (paragraphs [0033] and [0034] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 50, Fritsch discloses the content is of at least part of the IP packets in the input multicast media stream (paragraphs [0033] and [0034] of Fritsch). Fritsch does not explicitly disclose de- packetizing and the extracting of said content. However, Jabri discloses de-packetizing and extracting the content that is of at least part of the IP packets in the input multicast media stream (paragraphs “So the media transport transcoding (translation) consists of circuit-to-packet, packet-to-circuit and packet-to-packet translation of the media bits. When the transport is circuit based, the typically the media bits are multiplexed in a Time Domain Multiplexing (TDM) fashion.” – paragraph [0122], see also paragraphs [0084] and [0134]-[0136] and Claim 1 of Jabri).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch with the teachings of Jabri because it would have allowed for an efficient way to transcode between different formats in real time (paragraphs [0006]-[0008] of Jabri).
Regarding dependent claim 55, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 25, wherein each of the appliances out of the multiple media presentation appliances is addressable in the IP network using an IP address, and wherein the transmitting to any of the appliances uses the respective IP address (paragraphs [0033] and [0034] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 56, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 25, wherein each of the appliances is a set-top-box (paragraph [0032] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 57, Fritsch discloses an Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) system comprising the device according to claim 25, further comprising at least part of the IP network (paragraphs [0032]-[0034] and [0039] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 58, Fritsch discloses the IPTV system according to claim 57, wherein the IP network comprises, or is part of, part of the Internet (paragraph [0033] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 59, Fritsch discloses the IPTV system according to claim 57, wherein the IP network is part of a closed private network infrastructure operated or owned by a service provider, and wherein the infrastructure comprises a local loop medium connecting to at least part of the multiple media presentation appliances (paragraph [0032] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 62, Fritsch discloses the IPTV system according to claim 57, further comprising a headend, and wherein the input multicast media stream is received by the device from the headend (paragraphs [0031] of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 63, Fritsch discloses the IPTV system according to claim 57, wherein the first unicast media stream is provided as part of a Video-on-Demand (VoD) service, and wherein the first multicast media stream is provided as part of a television service (paragraphs [0032]-[0034] of Fritsch).
Claims 26-29, 47, and 51-54 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fritsch (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0124258, published September 5, 2002) in view of Jabri et al. (hereinafter Jabri, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0059647, effectively filed March 12, 2003), further in view of Benjamim et al. (hereinafter Benjamim, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0168679, effectively filed February 1, 2006).
Regarding dependent claim 26, neither Fritsch nor Jabri explicitly disclose the device according to claim 25, further operative for generating a second multicast media stream that is delayed from the first multicast media stream. However, Benjamim discloses generating a second multicast media stream that is delayed from the first multicast media stream (Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0071]-[0073] of Benjamim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch and Jabri with the teachings of Benjamim because it would have allowed for the system to adapt to bandwidth constraints (paragraph [0075] of Benjamim).
Regarding dependent claim 27, neither Fritsch nor Jabri explicitly disclose the device according to claim 26, further operative to for generating multiple multicast media streams that are delayed from the first multicast media stream, wherein each of the multiple multicast media streams is associated with a different time delay after the first multicast media stream. However, Benjamim discloses generating multiple multicast media streams that are delayed from the first multicast media stream, wherein each of the multiple multicast media streams is associated with a different time delay after the first multicast media stream (Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0071]-[0073] of Benjamim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch and Jabri with the teachings of Benjamim because it would have allowed for the system to adapt to bandwidth constraints (paragraph [0075] of Benjamim).
Regarding dependent claim 28, Fritsch discloses the device according to claim 27, for use with a request message from the first media presentation appliance, wherein the device is operative to select and transmit a multicast media streams to the first media presentation appliance over the IP network in response to the request message (paragraphs [003] and [0037] of Fritsch).
Neither Fritsch nor Jabri explicitly disclose the requested and transmitted multicast media streams is one of the multiple media streams generated that are delayed from the first media stream. However, Benjamim discloses requesting and transmitting one of the multicast media streams that is delayed from the first media stream (Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0067]-[0069] of Benjamim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch and Jabri with the teachings of Benjamim because it would have allowed for the system to adapt to bandwidth constraints (paragraph [0075] of Benjamim).
Regarding dependent claim 29, neither Fritsch nor Jabri explicitly disclose device according to claim 32, wherein the media stream transmitted to first media presentation appliance is selected in response to the timing when the requested message was received by the device. However, Benjamim discloses the media stream transmitted to first media presentation appliance is selected in response to the timing when the requested message was received by the device (Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0067]-[0069] of Benjamim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch and Jabri with the teachings of Benjamim because it would have allowed for the system to adapt to bandwidth constraints (paragraph [0075] of Benjamim).
Regarding dependent claim 47, neither Fritsch nor Jabri explicitly disclose inserting additional content to the multicast or the unicast media stream. However, Benjamim discloses inserting additional content to a multicast or unicast media stream (paragraphs [0043]-[0048] of Benjamim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch and Jabri with the teachings of Benjamim because it would have allowed for the insertion of advertisements that are targeted with one or more characteristics of the user (paragraph [0048] of Benjamim).
Regarding dependent claim 51, neither Fritsch nor Jabri explicitly disclose editing the extracted content or adding the local content to form an edited content. However, Benjamim discloses editing the extracted content to add advertisements based on user characteristics (paragraphs [0043]-[0048] of Benjamim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch and Jabri with the teachings of Benjamim because it would have allowed for the insertion of advertisements that are targeted with one or more characteristics of the user (paragraph [0048] of Benjamim).
Regarding dependent claim 52, Fritsch discloses re-packetizing content for forming the first multicast of the first unicast media stream (paragraphs [0033] and [0034] of Fritsch). Neither Fritsch nor Jabri explicitly disclose the content is edited. However, Benjamim discloses editing the content of a media stream (paragraphs [0043]-[0048] of Benjamim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch and Jabri with the teachings of Benjamim because it would have allowed for the insertion of advertisements that are targeted with one or more characteristics of the user (paragraph [0048] of Benjamim).
Regarding dependent claim 53, Fritsch discloses a device operative to receive local content (paragraph [0031] and Fig. 2, item 204 of Fritsch).
Regarding dependent claim 54, Fritsch discloses that the local content comprises geographically associated local content (paragraph [0031] and Fig. 2, item 204 of Fritsch).
Claims 38, 41, 60, 61, and 64-66 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fritsch (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0124258, published September 5, 2002) in view of Jabri et al. (hereinafter Jabri, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0059647, effectively filed March 12, 2003), further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter AAPA, based on discussions found in the background of U.S. Patent No. 9,185,151).
Regarding dependent claim 38, Fritsch does not explicitly disclose the first unicast media stream is based on, or uses, Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP). However, AAPA discloses that in IPTV systems Video on Demand (“VOD”) generally uses the Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) (column 2, lines 41-50 of AAPA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch and Jabri with the teachings of AAPA because as applicant explicitly admits that RTSP is generally used in IPTV systems for Video on Demand, thus the use of RTSP with the IPTV system of Fritsch would have been a mere application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007))
Regarding dependent claim 41, Fritsch does not explicitly disclose the first multicast media stream is based on, or uses, Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) version 2. However, AAPA discloses that in IPTV systems, the primary underlying protocols used for Live TV is using IGMP version 2 for connecting to a multicast stream (TV channel) and for changing from one multicast stream to another multicast stream (TV channel change) (column 2, lines 41-50 of AAPA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch and Jabri with the teachings of AAPA because as applicant explicitly admits that in IPTV systems, the primary underlying protocols used for Live TV is using IGMP version 2 for connecting to a multicast stream (TV channel) and for changing from one multicast stream to another multicast stream (TV channel change), thus the use of IGMP version 2 with the IPTV system of Fritsch would have been a mere application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Regarding dependent claim 60, Fritsch does not explicitly disclose the IP network is based on, or uses, a switched telephone or a coaxial cable network. However, AAPA discloses that well-known IPTV systems use a two-way digital broadcast signal sent through a switched telephone or cable network by way of a broadband connection (column 2, lines 12-21 of AAPA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch and Jabri with the teachings of AAPA because as applicant explicitly admits that in known IPTV systems, use switched telephone or coaxial cable networks, thus the use of said networks with the IPTV system of Fritsch would have been a mere application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Regarding dependent claim 61, Fritsch does not explicitly disclose providing high speed Internet access and Voice- over-IP (VoIP) services to at least part of the multiple media presentation appliances. However, AAPA discloses that IPTV is often provided in conjunction with Video on Demand and may be bundled with Internet services such as Web access and Voice over IP (“VoIP”) (column 1, lines 20-30 of AAPA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch and Jabri with the teachings of AAPA because as applicant explicitly admits that IPTV is often provided in conjunction with Video on Demand and may be bundled with Internet services such as Web access and Voice over IP (“VoIP”), thus bundling Internet services and VoIP with the IPTV system of Fritsch would have been a mere application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Regarding dependent claim 64, Fritsch does not explicitly disclose a server coupled to the device for providing a Network Personal Video Recording (NPVR) service. However, AAPA discloses that Network Personal Video Recording is a consumer service where real-time broadcast television is captured in the network on a server allowing the end user to access the recorded programs on the schedule of their choice, rather than being tied to the broadcast schedule. (column 2, lines 51-61 of AAPA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch and Jabri with the teachings of AAPA because as applicant explicitly admits Network Personal Video Recording is a known consumer service where real-time broadcast television is captured in the network on a server allowing the end user to access the recorded programs on the schedule of their choice, rather than being tied to the broadcast schedule, thus the use of NPVR with the IPTV system of Fritsch would have been a mere application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Regarding dependent claim 65, Fritsch discloses the use of a broadband local loop to connect at least one of the multiple media presentation appliances (Fig. 2 of Fritsch). Fritsch does not explicitly disclose wherein communication with the at least one of the multiple media presentation appliances is based on, or according to, Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line ADSL2+ standard. However, AAPA discloses that ADSL2+ is known, available residential high capacity network option (column 3, lines 43-52 of AAPA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch and Jabri with the teachings of AAPA because as applicant explicitly admits ADSL2+ is known, available residential high capacity network option, thus the use of ADSL2+ with the IPTV system of Fritsch would have been a mere application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Regarding dependent claim 66, Fritsch does not explicitly disclose a DSL Access Multiplexer (DSLAM) connected to the at least one of the multiple media presentation appliances using the local telephone loop. However, AAPA discloses that known DSL based networks use a DSLAM to provide network access to subscriber residences (column 3, lines 43-52 of AAPA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fritsch and Jabri with the teachings of AAPA because as applicant explicitly admits that known DSL based networks use a DSLAM to provide network access to subscriber residences, thus the use of a DSLAM with the IPTV system of Fritsch would have been a mere application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4133. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 M-F.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached on (571) 272-3744. 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.
/JOSHUA D CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ADAM L BASEHOAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992