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 .
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recite the limitations "the first network-connected device" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as previously recited “a first network-connected client device" in line 4 is different from "the first network-connected device". Note, claims 4, 5, and 8 has the same issues as stated above regarding "the first network-connected device".
Claim 1 recite the limitations "the second network-connected device" in lines 10 and 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as previously recited “a second network-connected client device" in line 9 is different from "the second network-connected device". Note, claims 3, 6-11, 13-16, and 19 has the same issues as stated above regarding "the second network-connected device".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first network-connected client device" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second network-connected client device" in lines 9-10 on pg. 8 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 2, 12, 18, and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because of their respective dependence on claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zoom (Video Meetings) as evidence YouTube video “How to run a Zoom webinar (Quick set up and tutorial)” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccSa83-EogE by Podia.
Claims 1 and 9. Podia discloses method, comprising:
receiving, by circuitry of an application system configured to communicate with a plurality of network-connected client devices, a first request from a first network-connected client device to initiate an application session (at 1:09 host webinar using Zoom, at 2:54-3:40 scheduling a webinar);
conveying, by the application system, at least one of application code or launch instructions to a second network-connected client device to initiate local execution of the application session on the second network-connected device, responsive to the first request (at 2:38-2:50 setup an account and download zoom meeting client or application, at 4:09-4:15 sends invitations for others to join the Zoom meeting); and
conveying, by the application system, data to the first network-connected device that enables the first network-connected device to control the application session executing on the second network-connected device (at 2:19-2:28 discusses host controls, at 3:40-3:54 discusses advance options of controlling the webinar).
PNG
media_image1.png
1654
2156
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1656
2162
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1642
2160
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1646
2158
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1652
2160
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
1650
2166
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 3, 11, and 19. Podia discloses further comprising:
responsive to a termination request to terminate execution of the application session, extracting application data; and
saving the application data in a database (at 0:47 and 3:48-3:53 discusses the ability to record meetings).
Claims 4, 12, and 20. Podia discloses further comprising:
receiving a second request, distinct from the first request, from the first network-connected, the second request comprising a request to restore the application session;
identifying a third network-connected device to fulfill the second request; and
restoring, based at least in part on the application data, execution of the application session on the third network-connected device (at 7:27-7:31 discusses “Alternative Hosts”, where the primary user enables another user to host the meeting session).
Claims 5 and 13. Podia discloses further comprising causing, by the application system, the first network-connected device to host an application session for a third network-connected device, responsive to a request from the third network-connected device (at 1:08-1:14 discuss hosting a meeting up to 100 participants).
Claim 17. Podia discloses a computing system comprising:
a processor comprising circuitry configured to:
store tracked metric data (at 1:08-1:14, there is a limit on number of participants and limit on time per session) corresponding to a plurality of network-connected client devices (at 2:48-2:52 discusses mobile devices, where users have corresponding computing devices to join Zoom meetings);
receive, from a first network-connected device, a first request to initiate an application session (at 1:09 host webinar using Zoom, at 2:54-3:40 scheduling a webinar);
access the metric data to identify a given client device of the plurality of network-connected client devices to serve as a host for the application session (at 1:08-1:14, there is a limit on number of participants and limit on time per session, in order for a user’s corresponding computing device to host a Zoom meeting criteria of participants and/or time must be met);
convey application code or launch instructions to given client device that enables it to host the application session (at 2:38-2:50 setup an account and download zoom meeting client or application); and
convey data to the first network-connected device that enables the first network-connected device to control the application session executing on the second network-connected client device (at 2:19 discusses host controls, at 3:40-3:54 discusses advance options of controlling the webinar).
Claim 18. Podia discloses wherein the metric data comprises data corresponding to one or more of latency, availability, network connectivity, a history of successfully hosted sessions, a failure rate, host reliability, geographic or network proximity, device capabilities, user rating or feedback, session duration history, uptime, recent activity (at 1:08-1:14, there is a limit on number of participants and limit on time per session), and control responsiveness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoom (Video Meetings) as evidence YouTube video “How to run a Zoom webinar (Quick set up and tutorial)” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccSa83-EogE by Podia in view of US Pub. 20030217156 to Datta et al (Datta).
Claim 8. Podia fails to explicitly disclose a peer-to-peer manner.
Datta teaches a peer-to-peer manner (20030217156 ¶57 “a peer-to-peer configuration”). The gaming system of Podia would have motivation to use the teachings of Datta in order to provide faster data transfer through direct connections and greater user control over shared data often provided in peer-to-peer networks.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the gaming system of Podia with the teachings of Datta in order to provide faster data transfer through direct connections and greater user control over shared data often provided in peer-to-peer networks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11-13, and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715