DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 1-20.
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 15, recites "CEC" which should be spelled out at first use.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2018/0007427 A1) in view of Dougherty et al. (US 2012/0311654 A1, as recited in the IDS) and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2023/0421342 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Park discloses:
"receiving, by a digital content system application on a CEC-enabled sink device and from a first CEC-enabled source device, a first application-specific message"
and
"receiving, by the digital content system application on the CEC-enabled sink device and from a second CEC-enabled source device, a second application-specific message"
in that Park teaches a sink device connected to a plurality of source devices via a High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) interface, wherein the sink device receives allocated IP addresses and exchanges device information and service information documents with multiple discovered source devices (Park, ¶¶ 0005, 0019; Figs. 2, 8). Park further teaches that, for devices lacking an IP-network connection, such device information and service information are requested and received using Consumer Electronics Control (CEC) message forms transmitted through the HDMI interface (Park, ¶¶ 0006-0007, 0108). Park additionally teaches parsing and maintaining information regarding discovered devices and supported services (Park, ¶¶ 0058, 0076). Accordingly, Park teaches receiving application-level device and service information from multiple source devices using CEC messaging.
Park does not expressly disclose:
"a first application-specific message that is opaque to a CEC-inclusive audio/video interface on the CEC-enabled sink device;"
and
"a second application-specific message that is opaque to a CEC-inclusive audio/video interface on the CEC-enabled sink device;"
Dougherty discloses the missing limitations noted above. Specifically, Dougherty teaches a media-device network in which a bridge collects capability information from connected devices and processes certain CEC messages locally while relaying other CEC messages between devices (Dougherty, ¶¶ 0024, 0034).
Dougherty further teaches that different HDMI device vendors may utilize different vendor-specific or otherwise non-generic CEC command groups and that the bridge probes and maintains a "CEC capability set" in order to determine when and how to translate incoming CEC messages before relaying them to receiving devices (Dougherty, ¶ 0034).
Accordingly, Dougherty teaches application-specific, vendor-specific, and non-generic CEC messages whose meaning is determined by higher-level bridge logic rather than by the baseline CEC transport interface itself. The underlying CEC-inclusive audio/video interface transports such messages while the bridge logic determines whether translation or specialized processing is required. Therefore, the vendor-specific and non-generic CEC messages of Dougherty constitute application-specific messages that are opaque to the baseline CEC-inclusive audio/video interface.
Park and Dougherty do not expressly disclose:
"establishing a mesh network comprising the CEC-enabled sink device, the first CEC-enabled source device, and the second CEC-enabled source device based on the first application-specific message and the second application-specific message."
Yu discloses the missing limitation.
Specifically, Yu teaches an HDMI communication architecture configured to connect multiple HDMI source devices to an HDMI sink device through a distributed communication topology (Yu, ¶¶ 0140-0141). Yu further teaches mapping traditional CEC bus communications onto point-to-point routing communications using a mesh-network architecture (Yu, ¶ 0134).
Yu expressly teaches:
"Topology 1000 implements half-duplex CEC request communication over a mesh network while virtually eliminating any occurrence of CEC bus deadlocks." (Yu, ¶ 0131).
Yu additionally teaches that multiple CEC nodes perform local CEC arbitration and route CEC requests through the mesh topology using dynamically controlled communication paths (Yu, ¶¶ 0131-0134).
Accordingly, Yu teaches establishing and utilizing a mesh-network communication architecture among multiple CEC-enabled nodes, including source and sink devices, for transporting CEC communications.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device-discovery and information-exchange architecture of Park to employ the vendor-specific and application-specific CEC message handling techniques of Dougherty and the mesh-network CEC communication architecture of Yu.
The motivation to incorporate Dougherty's teachings is to improve interoperability among devices utilizing different vendor-specific or non-generic CEC command groups while permitting application-level information to be exchanged and processed across heterogeneous devices.
The motivation to incorporate Yu's teachings is to improve communication among multiple CEC-enabled devices by employing a mesh-network communication topology that supports routing of CEC communications among multiple source and sink devices while reducing communication conflicts and bus deadlocks (Yu, ¶¶ 0131-0134).
Such modification merely combines known CEC discovery techniques, known application-specific CEC message processing techniques, and known mesh-network CEC communication techniques according to their established functions to achieve the predictable result of permitting application-level information to be exchanged among multiple discovered CEC-enabled devices communicating through a mesh network.
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites:
"wherein the first application-specific message and the second application-specific message utilize consumer electronic control features."
Park expressly teaches utilizing Consumer Electronics Control (CEC) protocol structures to transmit application-level device information and service information between a sink device and source devices. In particular, Park teaches that when a source device lacks a direct IP-network connection, device information and service information are requested and received using CEC communications over an HDMI interface (Park, ¶¶ 0006-0007, 0108).
Park expressly states:
"Also, the response message including device information and service information of the first source device may be received in a Consumer Electronic Control (CEC) message form." (Park, ¶ 0007).
Accordingly, Park teaches application-specific messages that utilize Consumer Electronics Control (CEC) features as claimed.
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites:
"wherein the first application-specific message and the second application-specific message are transmitted from instances of the digital content system application on the first CEC-enabled source device and the second CEC-enabled source device."
Park teaches that source devices generate and transmit device information and service information to other devices in the system. Specifically, Park teaches:
"receiving allocation of an Internet Protocol (IP) address; transmitting device information about the source device ... and transmitting service information..." (Park, ¶0018).
Park further teaches source devices having control units and memory units that store and provide device information and service information for transmission during discovery operations (Park, ¶0058).
Park therefore teaches that software executing on the source devices generates and transmits the device and service information exchanged during the discovery process.
Park does not expressly disclose that the software is denominated a "digital content system application."
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the device-information and service-information transmission functionality of Park as one or more application instances executing on the respective source devices. Implementing network-discovery, service-advertisement, and capability-exchange functionality within software applications executing on participating devices was a well-known and routine design choice. Such implementation would have predictably provided modular management of device information and service information while performing the same discovery and communication functions taught by Park.
Therefore, the first application-specific message and the second application-specific message would have been transmitted from corresponding application instances executing on the first and second source devices, as claimed.
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites:
"wherein the CEC-inclusive audio/video interface is one of an HDMI interface or a DisplayPort interface."
Park expressly teaches communication between source devices and sink devices through a High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) and further teaches transmission of CEC messages through the HDMI interface (Park, ¶¶ 0001, 0005-0007, 0019, 0108).
Accordingly, Park teaches the claimed embodiment in which the CEC-inclusive audio/video interface is an HDMI interface.
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and further recites:
"further comprising transmitting, from the CEC-enabled sink device, an acknowledgement application-specific message to the first CEC-enabled source device and the second CEC-enabled source device."
Park teaches bidirectional request-and-response communications between sink devices and source devices using CEC messaging. Specifically, Park teaches transmitting requests from a sink device and receiving corresponding responses containing device information and service information from source devices (Park, ¶¶ 0006-0007, 0108).
Park does not expressly disclose transmitting an acknowledgement application-specific message from the sink device to the source devices.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to transmit an acknowledgement message following receipt of the requested information in order to confirm successful receipt and processing of the information by the sink device. Acknowledgement messaging represents a well-known and predictable communication technique used in discovery, registration, and information-exchange protocols to improve communication reliability and synchronization among participating devices.
The incorporation of such acknowledgement messaging into the device-discovery framework of Park would merely involve the predictable use of known communication techniques to obtain their expected benefits.
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and further recites:
"wherein the acknowledgement application-specific message comprises a digital content system ID indicated by the digital content system application on the CEC-enabled sink device."
Park teaches maintaining device identifiers, device information, and service information associated with participating devices in the multimedia network (Park, e.g., ¶¶ 0054, 0196-0197).
Given the acknowledgement message rendered obvious in claim 5, it would have been obvious to include an identifier associated with the responding sink device or associated application in the acknowledgement message so that participating devices may identify the source of the acknowledgement. Including device or application identifiers within network messages is a well-known and predictable technique used for device identification, message attribution, and network management.
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites:
"further comprising utilizing the mesh network to establish a locality of one or both of the first CEC-enabled source device or the second CEC-enabled source device."
Park teaches determining and maintaining topology information associated with participating HDMI devices, including obtaining and utilizing HDMI physical addresses to identify device locations within the system topology (Park, ¶¶ 0011, 0148, 0159).
Yu teaches a mesh-network communication architecture among multiple CEC-enabled nodes (Yu, ¶¶ 0131-0141).
It would have been obvious to utilize the mesh-network architecture of Yu in conjunction with the topology and address information maintained by Park in order to determine the locality of participating source devices within the network. Determining device location and topology information is a predictable and fundamental aspect of managing communications among multiple interconnected devices.
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites:
"further comprising utilizing the mesh network to automatically log the first CEC-enabled source device or the second CEC-enabled source device into a digital content system."
Park teaches discovering source devices and obtaining device information and service information associated with those devices (Park, ¶¶ 0005-0007, 0058, 0108). Park further teaches maintaining information regarding discovered devices and services within the system.
Given the mesh-network architecture rendered obvious by Yu, it would have been obvious to automatically register or log discovered source devices into the digital content system upon discovery in order to reduce user intervention and streamline device participation within the system. Automatic registration of discovered devices represents a predictable use of known device-discovery information for network management purposes.
Therefore, claim 8 would have been obvious over Park in view of Dougherty and Yu.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 recites a system comprising at least one processor and memory storing instructions configured to perform substantially the same operations recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, Park, Dougherty, and Yu teach or render obvious the limitations of claim 9 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 10-16:
Claims 10-16 depend directly or indirectly from claim 9 and recite limitations substantially identical to those recited in corresponding claims 2-8, respectively.
Accordingly, claims 10-16 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to corresponding claims 2-8.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform substantially the same operations recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, Park, Dougherty, and Yu teach or render obvious the limitations of claim 17 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 18-19:
Claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 17 and recite limitations substantially identical to those recited in claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Accordingly, claims 18 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 depends from claim 17 and further recites:
"further comprising one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor of the CEC-enabled sink device, cause the CEC-enabled sink device to log the digital content system application on the CEC-enabled sink device into a digital content system."
Park teaches automatic discovery, registration, and maintenance of device and service information associated with participating devices (Park, ¶¶ 0005-0007, 0058, 0108, 0193-0197). It would have been obvious to register or log the digital content system application executing on the sink device into the same digital content system so that the application may participate in system-wide content and service management. Such registration represents a predictable extension of the known registration and discovery techniques taught by Park and yields the expected result of allowing the application to participate in the digital content system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on 571-27. 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). 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights