DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “app” is an abbreviation for the word ‘application’; the first instance of an abbreviation should be included in parentheses following the spelling out of the full term. Additionally, while the use of abbreviations in the claims is allowed, their use comes with a risk of ambiguity. Particularly, while the abbreviation “app” is generally understood to refer to an “application”, the abbreviation is commonly associated with applications specific to mobile devices such as smartphones or tablets, and therefore the use of the abbreviation in the claims could unintentionally limit the scope of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12, 25-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 recite the limitation "the monitoring", however, the only instance of “monitoring” was removed by the amendments to claim 1, and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 7, the term “ambiguities” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ambiguities” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As to claim 8, the term “irrelevant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “irrelevant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As to claim 10, the term “estimations” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “estimations” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As to claim 26, the term “likelihood” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likelihood” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the streaming media app" in line 7 of the claim; there is no prior instance of ‘a streaming media app’, and therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 34 and claim 35 recite the limitation “a streaming media app”, a correction to ‘the streaming media app’ may be necessary, depending on potential amendments made to claim 28, so that the limitation correctly corresponds to a first instance of the limitation.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the programmer server" in line 12 of the claim; there is no prior instance of ‘a programmer server’, and therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the programmer server" in line 5 of the claim; there is no prior instance of ‘a programmer server’, and therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 38 and 41 recite the limitation “a programmer server”, a correction to ‘the programmer server’ may be necessary, depending on potential amendments made to claim 37, so that the limitation correctly corresponds to a first instance of the limitation.
Claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12, 25, and 27 are rejected due to dependence on claim 1. Claims 29-36 and 48-49 are rejected due to dependence on claim 28. Claims 38-47 are rejected due to dependence on claim 37.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 9-10, 12, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higuchi et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0131782), hereinafter referred to as Higuchi.
Referring to claim 1, Higuchi discloses a method for determining the state of a television in an HDMI system (fig. 1) comprising: receiving audiovisual content from an HDMI device through an HDMI cable, wherein data streams communicated received through the HDMI cable includes HDMI CEC messages (audio-visual (AV) equipment, [0004]; Each HDMI apparatus constituting this AV system is CEC-compatible, [0014]; fig. 1, HDMI cables); analyzing the received HDMI CEC messages to determine if audiovisual content from an HDMI device is routed to a television (when the mode for outputting audio (i.e., the system audio mode) of the AV amp 12 is on, the AV amp 12 receives an HDMI signal from the BD recorder 14 or similar device, and then transmits only the picture signal contained in the HDMI signal to the TV 11. If the system audio mode of the AV amp 12 is off, then the AV amp 12 receives an HDMI signal from the BD recorder 14 or similar device, and then transmits the HDMI signal received from the BD recorder 14 or similar device to the TV 11 as-is; [0053]); analyzing the received HDMI CEC messages to determine if the television is powered on (CEC message referred to as "GIVE DEVICE POWER STATUS"…to transmit the above message to the TV 11...in order to request the current power state of that CEC-compatible device, [0148]); and taking a predetermined action based on the monitoring and analyzing (fig. 7-12).
As to claim 2, Higuchi discloses sending a CEC command and analyzing the response to determine if the television is powered on (CEC message referred to as "GIVE DEVICE POWER STATUS"…to transmit the above message to the TV 11...in order to request the current power state of that CEC-compatible device, [0148]).
As to claim 3, Higuchi discloses the monitoring is performed by a streaming media player device (HDMI repeater…acts as both an HDMI source and an HDMI sink to function as a relay between the HDMI source and the HDMI sink, [0006]; an AV amp acts as the HDMI repeater, [0013]; "GIVE DEVICE POWER STATUS" transmitted from the AV amp 12, [0150]).
As to claim 4, Higuchi discloses the monitoring is performed by a device that is not a media player (an AV amp acts as the HDMI repeater, and a BD (Blu-ray Disc.TM.) recorder acts as the HDMI source, [0013]; "GIVE DEVICE POWER STATUS" transmitted from the AV amp 12, [0150]; NOTE: the AV Amp streams the media acting as a media player device source, but is not the media player, the BD (Blu-ray Disc.TM.) recorder is the actual media player HDMI source ).
As to claim 5, Higuchi discloses the predetermined action comprises at least one of: sending an instruction to stop streaming, sending an instruction to start streaming (playback operations in the BD recorder acting as the HDMI source, [0014]; it is possible to power on the TV 11 in accordance with instructions for a "ONE TOUCH PLAY" function issued to the BD recorder 14, [0190]), or sending an instruction to report stream viewing time.
As to claim 9, Higuchi discloses inferring the television power state by eavesdropping on television messages and using the cessation of such messages to infer that the television has been turned off (as long as the counter 252 of the AV amp 12 continues to periodically receive polling messages from the TV 11. During this time, the AV amp 12 does not check the power state of the TV 11 according to "GIVE DEVICE POWER STATUS"…when the "POLLING MESSAGE", which should be transmitted twice every 30 seconds, is not received at all in 31 seconds…the communication controller 253 reads a CEC message referred to as "GIVE DEVICE POWER STATUS" from the message manager 254, and causes the CEC unit 83 to transmit the above message to the TV 11. Herein…in order to request the current power state of that CEC-compatible device, [0146-0148]).
As to claim 10, Higuchi discloses using separate estimations of TV source selection ("ACTIVE SOURCE" is a CEC message, [0184]) and TV power state ("GIVE DEVICE POWER STATUS" is a CEC message transmitted via HDMI by a CEC-compatible device to another particular CEC-compatible device, in order to request the current power state of that CEC-compatible device, [0148]).
As to claim 12, Higuchi discloses using both Active Source and Routing Change messages ("ACTIVE SOURCE" is a CEC message, [0184]; "ROUTING CHANGE" is a CEC message, [0226]) to infer the value of fTVRenderingSMP indicating whether the TV is on and has a streaming media player (SMP) selected for display (AV amp 12 determines whether or not the CEC unit 83 has received an "ACTIVE SOURCE" message…if it is determined in step S113 that "ACTIVE SOURCE" has been received, then the process proceeds to step S114. In step S114, the power controller 251 initiates power supply from the power supply 74 to the HDMI block 99. In other words, the power controller 251 powers on the HDMI block 99, [0196-0198]).
As to claim 25, Higuchi discloses sending a CEC command and analyzing the response to determine if audiovisual content from an HDMI device is routed to a television ("ROUTING CHANGE" is a CEC message transmitted to all HDMI apparatus connected by HDMI upon activation of the TV 11 or similar times when the active HDMI connections with other HDMI apparatus have changed. "ROUTING INFORMATION" is a CEC message transmitted to all HDMI apparatus connected by HDMI upon activation of the TV 11; [0226]).
As to claim 26, Higuchi discloses the predetermined action comprises reporting the likelihood that audiovisual content from an HDMI device is routed to a television ("ROUTING CHANGE" is a CEC message transmitted to all HDMI apparatus connected by HDMI upon activation of the TV 11 or similar times when the active HDMI connections with other HDMI apparatus have changed. "ROUTING INFORMATION" is a CEC message transmitted to all HDMI apparatus connected by HDMI upon activation of the TV 11; [0226]).
As to claim 27, Higuchi discloses tracking and prioritizing past parameter values of CEC messages (fig. 7, tracking and prioritizing of past parameters values depicted in flow from S11 (Power State is on?) to S15 (Power State is standby?) to S16 (Give Device Power Status Received?), [0129]).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi in view of Roberts et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0369526), hereinafter referred to as Roberts.
As to claim 6, while Higuchi anticipates inferring television source selection for a non-CEC source (when an HDMI source (not shown in the drawings) incompatible with the HDMI-CEC standard is connected to the AV amp 12, [0231]), Higuchi does not appear to explicitly disclose using physical addresses.
However, Roberts discloses using physical addresses (a non-CEC enabled HDMI device 216, such as a game console that does not comply with the CEC standard can have physical address 1.2.2.0; [0037]).
Higuchi and Roberts are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, HDMI communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Higuchi and Roberts before him or her, to modify the HDMI system of Higuchi to include the non-CEC physical addressing of Roberts in order to facilitate communication among devices with different capabilities.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow communication among CEC and non-CEC devices (Roberts: [0037-0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Higuchi and Roberts to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi in view of Dharmaraju et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0002255), hereinafter referred to as Dharmaraju.
As to claims 7, Higuchi teaches each device being assigned a unique physical address, which does not consider the possibility of address conflicts, and therefore Higuchi does not appear to explicitly disclose resolving address conflicts by prioritizing certain messages over others to resolve ambiguities.
However, Dharmaraju teaches resolving address conflicts by prioritizing certain messages over others to resolve ambiguities (resolve existing conflicts by determining a priority address and maintaining its existing address or selecting a new address in response to the priority of the respective devices, [0027]).
Higuchi and Dharmaraju are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, device messaging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Higuchi and Dharmaraju before him or her, to modify the HDMI system of Higuchi to include the address prioritization of Dharmaraju in order to resolve address conflicts.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to resolve address conflicts (Dharmaraju: [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Higuchi and Dharmaraju to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 8, the combination of Higuchi in view of Dharmaraju teaches resolving address conflicts by ignoring irrelevant data (Dharmaraju: resolve existing conflicts by…maintaining its existing address, [0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-49 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: the US Patent No. 10929530 of Puche Rondon et al. is pertinent to managing an HDMI network; the US Pub. No. 2013/0223671 of Jin et al. is pertinent to session management and media watermarking.
The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks ™, and other legal symbols ®, where required, an Abstract on a clean page (i.e., no Titles, Attorney information, line numbers, page numbers, exc... (37 CFR 1.72(b)) just a heading “ABSTRACT” and a paragraph less than 150 words), and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the” and “said” within each claim) with each claim increasing in numerical order and ending in a period {if amended}. Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
The examiner has cited particular column, line, and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks ™, and other legal symbols ®, where required, an Abstract on a clean page (i.e., no Titles, Attorney information, line numbers, page numbers, exc... (37 CFR 1.72(b)) just a heading “ABSTRACT” and a paragraph less than 150 words), and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the” and “said” within each claim) with each claim increasing in numerical order and ending in a period {if amended}. Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Applicants seeking an interview with the examiner, including WebEx Video Conferencing, are encouraged to fill out the online Automated Interview Request (AIR) form (http://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html). See MPEP §502.03, §713.01(11) and Interview Practice for additional details.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T OBERLY whose telephone number is (571)272-6991. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 800am-430pm (MT).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dr. Henry Tsai can be reached on (571) 272-4176. 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 Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC T OBERLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184