DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b). Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claims of the following: U.S. Patent No. 11,902,343. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,343, and independent claims of the present application share the following: A method for managing a conference call using a selective transmission unit (STU) to manage a plurality of client devices participating in the conference call, the method comprising: receiving, by a selective transmission unit (STU), video transmission parameters from each of a plurality of client devices; receiving, by the STU, video reception parameters from each of the client devices; instructing, by the STU, a first client device of the plurality of client devices to start transmitting a first video stream at a first resolution based on at least some of the video transmission parameters and the video reception parameters; receiving, by the STU, the first video stream; and forwarding the first video stream to at least a second client device of the client devices based on the video reception parameters of the second client device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
3. 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuusela et al (US 2017/0013233 A1, hereinafter Kuusela) in view of Choi (US 2011/0279640 A1, hereinafter Choi)
Consider claim 1, Kuusela clearly shows and discloses a method for managing a conference call using a selective transmission unit (STU) (reads on “VIDEO CONFERENCE SERVER 720”, fig. 7) to manage a plurality of client devices (fig. 7, labels: 710, 730, 732, 734) participating in the conference call, the method comprising: receiving, by a selective transmission unit (STU), video transmission parameters from each of a plurality of client devices (this is implied in as much as the devices are sending and receiving videos of different video resolutions as shown in fig. 7) (fig. 7); receiving, by the STU, video reception parameters from each of the client devices (VIDEO CONFERENCE SERVER 720”, fig. 7, for e.g., bandwidth situation) (fig. 7); instructing, by the STU, a first client device of the plurality of client devices to start transmitting a first video stream at a first resolution based on at least some of the video transmission parameters and the video reception parameters (each client or terminal has at least one encoder and sends one or more video streams to a relay server; he participants send an encoded video stream, for example, a video stream 612, to server 602. As will be discussed herein the video stream 612 can include video frames at multiple resolutions) (paragraphs: 0004; 0055); receiving, by the STU, the first video stream (Server 602 receives the encoded video streams) (paragraphs: 0053-0056); and forwarding the first video stream to at least a second client device of the client devices based on the video reception parameters of the second client device (Server 602 sends to the participants 604, 606, 608, and 610 a return signal, such as a return signal 614, that includes portions of the video streams received from the other participants. The content of the video streams transmitted to each of the participants includes video for some or all of the other participants, at a certain resolution) (paragraphs: 0053 -0056; 0057- 0058; and figs. 6-7); however, Kuusela does not disclose another example for video transmission parameters.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi clearly specifically disclose another example for video transmission parameters (the resolution adjusting unit 122 can determine the video resolution corresponding to the available bandwidth measured with reference to the lookup table stored in the memory 130 as the output resolution of the camera 141) (paragraph: 00089)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Choi into teaching of Kuusela for the purpose of providing another example for managing video transmission parameters
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amal Zenati whose telephone number is 571-270-1947. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 -5:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571- 272- 7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/AMAL S ZENATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693