DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 20 MARCH 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowler at al., US 2021/0044641 in view of Oliver et al., US 2013/0227225 and further in view of Miyasaka et al., US 2012/0323583 and Lomnitz et al., US 2022/0369064.
Regarding claim 1, Knowler discloses a method for supervising a multimedia stream reading terminal through a telecommunication network (tracking data/information about client device usage in relation to network; page 3, paragraph 45, and page 4, paragraph 47, and Fig. 3), including:
collecting tracking data intended for at least one tracking server connected to the telecommunication network (reporter module for collecting data and generating packets for provision to at least a cloud server; page 1, paragraph 30, and wherein connected via network; page 2, paragraph 33, and Fig. 1, element 108), storing the tracking data in a memory of said the reading terminal (generated packet(s) can be queued in at least memory of the client device; page 5, paragraph 58), checking a resource load criterion of the reading terminal, and transmitting at least a part of the tracking data to the at least one tracking server when the criterion is met (will check for condition to be met, such as available bandwidth associated with the client device and communication network and/or times/timing, and will upload the packet(s) to the server based on determination; pages 5-6, paragraphs 61-63),
wherein the resources comprise a load of the processing circuits of the terminal (based on interval in relation to load on the client device, i.e. processing load; page 5, paragraph 55).
While Knowler does allude to buffering (page 2, paragraph 30), Knowler does not explicitly disclose storing tracking data in buffer memory;
dynamically checking a resource load criteria comprises determining whether a resource load is below a threshold,
responsive to the dynamically checking being positive, performing certain operations; and
a load of processing of a terminal at the time of the dynamically checking.
In a related art, Oliver does disclose storing tracking data in buffer memory (monitored data can be stored in at least one buffer memory; page 5, paragraph 39, and page 6, paragraphs 44 and 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Knowler and Oliver by allowing collected data to be store in buffer storage, in order to provide an improved system and method for determining user characteristics/use based on collected data in a least one buffer (Oliver; see abstract, and page 1, paragraph 3).
Knowler in view of Oliver does not explicitly disclose dynamically checking a resource load criteria comprises determining whether a resource load is below a threshold,
responsive to the dynamically checking being positive, performing certain operations; and
a load of processing of a terminal at the time of the dynamically checking.
In a related electrical art, Miyasaka does disclose dynamically checking a resource load criterion of a terminal (system can a certain times, i.e. dynamically, obtain, i.e. measure/check, a processing load in relation to a threshold; page 9, paragraphs 145-146);
responsive to the dynamically checking being positive, performing certain operations (system can perform certain processing based on the processing load threshold/criterion, i.e. being positive/met; page 9, paragraphs 145-146); and
resources comprise a load of processing of a terminal at the time of the dynamically checking (again, based on a certain times, i.e. dynamically, checking a processing load in relation to a threshold/criterion; page 9, paragraphs 145-146).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Knowler, Oliver, and Miyasaka by allowing a processor load of a terminal to be utilized with the already present criterion disclosed in Knowler in view of Oliver, in order to provide an improved system and method which reduces the amount of computation required for performing certain processing/processes (Miyasaka; page 4, paragraph 54).
Knowler in view of Oliver and Miyasaka does not explicitly disclose determining whether a resource load is below a threshold.
In a related art, Lomnitz does disclose checking a resource load criteria comprises determining whether a resource load is below a threshold, and responsive to the checking being positive, transmitting (based on determined computational/processor resources utilized by the device, wherein can decide that transmitting is permitted if resources utilized are less than a threshold, i.e. when determining/checking being a positive result that resources utilized are less than the threshold; page 7, paragraphs 49 and 51-53, and page 8, paragraph 54, and page 4, paragraphs 30-31);
wherein the resources comprise a load of the processing circuits of a terminal (resources including at least processor use; page 3, paragraph 29, and page 4, paragraph 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Knowler, Oliver, Miyasaka, and Lomnitz by allowing a more precise processor load threshold/criteria of a terminal to be utilized with the already present criterion disclosed in Knowler in view of Oliver and Miyasaka, in order to provide an improved system and method which reduces performance effect of a device when acquiring and transmitting data (Lomnitz; page 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 5, Knowler in view of Oliver, Miyasaka and Lomnitz disclose the resources comprise a bandwidth to the telecommunications network (Knowler; based on available bandwidth associated with the client device and communication network; pages 5-6, paragraphs 61-63).
Regarding claim 6, Knowler in view of Oliver, Miyasaka, and Lomnitz discloses the load criterion comprises the maintaining of the load below the given threshold for a given period (Knowler; generation and transmission of the packet(s) can be based on a threshold amount, i.e. load and for particular intervals, i.e. for a given period; page 2, paragraph 31, and page 5, paragraphs 54-55, and pages 5-6, paragraph 63, and Lomnitz; resources utilized are less than a threshold; page 7, paragraphs 49 and 51-53, and page 8, paragraph 54, and page 4, paragraphs 30-31, and again resources including at least processor use; page 3, paragraph 29, and page 4, paragraph 34).
Claim 8, which discloses a terminal, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a terminal comprising at least one interface to a telecommunication network (Knowler; including input/output interface for communication with network; page 3, paragraph 41, and Fig. 2, element 116); and
a processor configured to execute operations (Knowler; including at least a processor for performing operations; page 3, paragraph 40, and Fig. 2, element 114).
Claim 9, which discloses a computer program, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 8. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a computer program (Knowler; with at least processor instructions/software included in memory/medium; page 3, paragraph 43).
Claim 10, which discloses a terminal, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 9.
Claim 11, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowler at al., US 2021/0044641 in view of Oliver et al., US 2013/0227225, Miyasaka et al., US 2012/0323583, and Lomnitz et al., US 2022/0369064, and further in view of Nelson et al., US 2016/0094876.
Regarding claim 2, Knowler in view of Oliver, Miyasaka, and Lomnitz discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as data of a first type and data of a second type are stored separately (Oliver; different data, i.e. types can be stored separately; page 5, paragraph 39, and page 6, paragraphs 44 and 49, and Knowler; packet(s) containing various types of data; page 2, paragraph 30), and wherein the data of the first type are transmitted when the criterion is met (Knowler; packet(s) containing at least a first type of data can be transmitted to server when available bandwidth associated with the client device and communication network condition is met; pages 5-6, paragraphs 61-63, and again with packet(s) containing various types of data; page 2, paragraph 30).
Knowler in view of Oliver, Miyasaka, and Lomnitz does not explicitly disclose data of a particular type is transmitted as a priority with a criterion is met.
In a related art, Nelson does disclose data of a particular type is transmitted as a priority with a criterion is met (based on certain condition(s) being met, system can report certain type of data, i.e. real-time versus non-real-time type of data; page 5, paragraphs 36-37, and wherein the real-time data can be transmitted with priority over other transmissions; page 6, paragraph 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Knowler, Oliver, Miyasaka, Lomnitz, and Nelson by allowing certain types of collected data to be sent in a prioritized manner, in order to provide an improved system and method for selective real-time reporting of media detection information in a manner that overcomes the technical problems caused by overloading or overburdening a networked computing system (Nelson; page 1, paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 3, Knowler in view of Oliver, Miyasaka, Lomnitz, and Nelson discloses the data of the first type and the data of the second type are stored in two separate buffer memories (Oliver; including at least one buffer memory, i.e. interpreted as multiple can be used such as a first/second; page 1, paragraph 6, and page 6, paragraph 49, and wherein particular types of data can be stored in separate memory locations, whether physical or logical; page 5, paragraph 39, and page 6, paragraphs 44 and 49, and Knowler; with multiple memory components; Fig. 2, element 120, and page 3, paragraph 43, and Nelson; with multiple memories for storing the data to be conveyed; page 4, paragraphs 30-31).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowler at al., US 2021/0044641 in view of Oliver et al., US 2013/0227225, Miyasaka et al., US 2012/0323583, and Lomnitz et al., US 2022/0369064, and further in view of Ratias, US 2018/0234496.
Regarding claim 7, Knowler in view of Oliver, Miyasaka, and Lomnitz discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as triggering the transmission of at least a part of the tracking data to the at least one tracking server (Knowler; will check for condition to be met, such as available bandwidth associated with the client device and communication network, and will upload the packet(s) to the server based on determination of sufficient bandwidth; pages 5-6, paragraphs 61-63).
Knowler in view of Oliver, Miyasaka, and Lomnitz does not explicitly disclose supervising the location of a pointer in a human-machine interface of a reading terminal, and triggering an operation when the location is in a given area.
In a related art, Ratias does disclose supervising the location of a pointer in a human-machine interface of a reading terminal, and triggering an operation when the location is in a given area (can monitor and detect positioning of cursor/pointer in a user interface associated with a computing device, and wherein based on certain position being determined, can trigger a transmission operation to be performed; page 6, paragraph 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Knowler, Oliver, Miyasaka, Lomnitz, and Ratias, by allowing certain operations to be triggered based on a determined interface location/position, in order to provide an improved system and method for enabled sharing of information across multiple electronic devices (Ratias; page 1, paragraph 2).
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 RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights