Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant mainly contends that combined teachings of Yoo and Katrib fail to teach or suggest the limitations “establishing, via the multi-casting system, a wireless connection between a receiving device and a plurality of sending devices “and “transmitting, via the multi-casting system, a live-stream data of the first sending device to the receiving device based on the user input” as recited in claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Yoo discloses a handshaking system, as shown in FIG. 1, including at least one source device to provide media data to at least one sink device via the gateway. It shows that Yoo’s system supports the source devices to communicate with the gateway by wire or wirelessly providing the type of media data, e.g., high or low quality of media data, to the sink devices.
Particularly, Yoo describes those features in the following paragraphs:
“[0061] In a case where the source device 2 provides media data using a wired connection method, detailed specifications including performance information of the sink device 3 may be transmitted to the source device 2, and based on the performance information, the source device 2 may provide high quality media data through a rendering process that enables audio or video to be output by the sink device 3 in optimal quality from among a variety of rendering options that may be provided by the source device 2.
[0062] On the other hand, in a case where the source device 2 provides media data using a wireless connection method, as opposed to the wired connection method described above, media data may only be transmitted according to predetermined limited specifications regardless of the performance of the sink device 3. Accordingly, even though the sink device 3 supports high performance, the quality of video and audio that may be viewed or listened to is inevitably low.”
Yoo further describes the connections between the sink device and source device via the gateway in those paragraphs:
“[0085] As described above, the initial connection between the gateway apparatus 1 and the source device 2 may be performed via the communication circuitry 10 as a user connects the gateway apparatus 1 and the source device 2 by wire (211).
[0089] As described above, the initial connection between the gateway apparatus 1 and the sink device 3 may be performed via the communication circuitry 10 as the user connects the two devices wirelessly (212). For example, the user may select to connect the gateway apparatus 1 to the sink device 3 among connectable devices connected to a wireless network.”
Thus, in the case using wireless method, the source device may wirelessly communicate with sink device, via the gateway, to only send the media data according to predetermined limited specifications. Also, the gateway wirelessly connects with the sink device providing communications between the source device and the sink device while the source device connects by wire. From those aspects, it is submitted that Yoo teaches or suggests establishing a wireless connection between the source device and the sink device via the gateway.
Second, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 because the claim does not require establishing, by the receiving device, a wireless connection directly with the sending devices.
Next, applicant states that Katrib fails to teach or disclose a way for a user directly star a live video stream from a sending device to a receiver. It is noted that the feature of receiving user’s input that indicates user selection of a source device from options A-C corresponding to source devices for providing media data disclosed by Yoo in the following paragraphs:
“[0161] Based on the source device list information output to the sink device 3, the user may select the source device 2 to provide media data, through the sink device 3.
[0165] Accordingly, the controller 30 may receive the user's selection signal for at least one source device 2 from the sink device 3 via the communication circuitry 10.”
However, Yoo is silent on a multicast system and transmitting the media data as a live stream data from the selected source device to the sink device via the multicast system. Katrib discloses transmitting livestream video data via a multicast system, e.g.., local area network, as a multicast to destination devices by the gateway. See col. 4, lines 40-60; col. 11, lines 16-18.
Contrary to applicant’s assertion, the recitation of the claimed “transmitting, via the multi-casting system, a live stream data of the first sending device to the receiving device based on the user input” does not require that the user controls which sending device streams directly to the receiver.
Lastly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the receiving device itself establishes wireless connections directly with multiple sending devices simultaneously, using a multi-casting system”; “the receiving device directly establishes and manages wireless connections with several sending device at once”; “a receiving device with capability to independently locate and manage simultaneous wireless connections with multiple sending devices”; and “letting the sending device send video directly to the receiver when chosen by the user”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the combination of Yoo and Katrib teaches or suggests the features “establishing, via the multi-casting system, a wireless connection between a receiving device and a plurality of sending devices “and “transmitting, via the multi-casting system, a live-stream data of the first sending device to the receiving device based on the user input” of claim 1.
Since independent claims 8 and 15 disclose features similar to independent claim 1, the responses for independent claim 1 mentioned above are also applicable for independent claims 8 and 15. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected at least for reasons described above regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 15, and by virtue of their respective dependencies upon independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-20 are maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US 20240406803 A1) in view of Katrib (US 11,425,789 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Yoo teaches a method comprising:
establishing, via a system, a wireless connection between a receiving device and a plurality of sending devices (establishing a wireless connection between at least one source device and at least one sink device via gateway apparatus 1. See FIG. 1, 0039, 0060, 0062, 0085, 0089);
upon establishing the wireless connection, rendering, via the system, at least one option corresponding to each of the plurality of sending devices on a user interface (UI) of the receiving device (presenting on a user interface of the sink device options corresponding to source devices according the source device list provided by gateway apparatus 1. See FIG. 6, 0135, 0155, 0158, 0160);
in response to rendering, receiving, via the system, a user input from a user of the receiving device, wherein receiving the user input comprises selecting a first option corresponding to a first sending device from the at least one option corresponding to each of the plurality of sending devices (receiving a user’s selection signal, via the gateway apparatus 1, indicating one of the source devices selected from the options A-C corresponding to source devices by a user of the sink device. See FIG. 6, 0160-0166, 0273-0275); and
transmitting, via the system, a data of the first sending device to the receiving device based on the user input (transmitting, via the gateway apparatus 1, media data of the selected source device to the sink device based on the user’s selection signal. See 0242, 0260, 0277, 0279).
Yoo is silent on a multicast system and transmitting the media data as a live stream data of the selected source device to the sink device via the multicast system. However, Katrib discloses transmitting livestream video data, via a multicast system, e.g.., local area network, as a multicast to destination devices by the gateway. See FIG. 1, col. 4, lines 40-60; col. 11, lines 16-18. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo by using a multicast system and transmitting a livestream data of the source device to the receiving device via the multicast system as taught or suggested by Katrib for the purposes of conserving bandwidth and maintaining quality of sending live stream data to multiple receiving devices.
Regarding claim 2, Yoo teaches that wherein the wireless connection is established via a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) Direct technology (see 0060, 0067).
Regarding claim 4, Yoo teaches providing a control to the user of the receiving device for selecting a sending device of the plurality of sending devices by selecting a corresponding option (see FIG. 6, 0159-0161, 0273-0275).
Regarding claim 5, Yoo in combination with Katrib teaches that wherein selecting the first option corresponding to the first sending device comprises activating the first sending device for multi-casting based on the selected option (causing the source device to transmit the rendered media data responsive to the user’s selection signal for the selected sink device – see Yoo: 0276-0277; multicasting the livestream data from the gateway device 100 to the receiver devices – see Katrib: col. 3, lines 52-54; col. 4, lines 33-35; col. 11, lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 6, Yoo in combination with Katrib teaches initiating a live projection of a sending device screen onto a receiving device display; and rendering the live-stream data associated with the sending device screen via a Graphical User Interface (GUI) of the receiving device (transmitting the media data of the selected source device to the sink device for displaying – see Yoo: 0242, 0260, 0277, 0279; the gateway device 100 includes a display 110 for displaying a livestreamed video content and transfers the livestream data being displayed to the receiver devices 172 and 173 for displaying – see Katrib: col. 3, lines 52-54; col. 4, lines 33-35; col. 6, lines 17-21).
Regarding claim 7, Yoo in combination with Katrib teaches that wherein the at least one option corresponding to the each of the plurality of sending devices along with an associated live-stream data is displayed on a GUI of the receiving device (each option from the list corresponds to each of source devices displayed on a GUI of the sink device as shown in FIG. 6 – see Yoo: FIG. 6, 0044, 0159-0161, 0273-0275; providing livestream data from to the receiver device for displaying – see Katrib: col. 11, lines 16-18).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, see rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, see rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, see rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, see rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, see rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection of claim 7.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US 20240406803 A1) in view of Katrib (US 11,425,789 B2) and further in view of Xia (US 20250117398 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yoo in combination with Katrib teaches selecting one of the source devices from the options corresponding the source devices, using the multicast system and sending livestream data. Both lack to describe switching from the first sending device to a second sending device by selecting a second option associated with the second sending device; and transmitting a live-stream data of the second sending device to the receiving device based on the switching. However, Xia discloses that a user may perform an operation on the receiving device 402 to switch the sending devices for sending audiovisual stream by a sending device has been switched using a menu. For example, the user may tap an OK key on a keyboard tabulator key (tabulator key, Tab) on the receiving device 402, and a drop-down menu shown in FIG. 10 is displayed. The menu displays a list of sending devices that can be switched. FIG. 10, 0067, 0134. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoo and Katrib by switching from the first sending device to a second sending device by selecting a second option associated with the second sending device, and transmitting a stream data of the second sending device to the receiving device based on the switching as disclosed or suggested by Xia to allow the user smoothly changing sending devices using a menu.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, see rejection of claim 3.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NGOC K VU whose telephone number is (571)272-7306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday & Thursday: 10AM-6:30PM EST; Tuesday, Wednesday & Friday: out of office.
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, NATHAN FLYNN can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/NGOC K VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights