DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-3 are amended. Claims 1-3 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/15/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3 on the ground of statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 16 of U.S. Pat. 10,979,507, and claims 1-3 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Pat. 10,356,179 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as detailed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the third data stream" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim does not previously recite “a third data stream”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are allowed.
Claim 1 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or render obvious the specific method, system, and product as set forth in the Specification, ¶[0063]-[0157], Fig. 3-9, and recited in independent claims 1, 2, and 3, in particular comprising:
combining the first data stream with the second data stream to synthesize the third data stream;
instantiating a third data stream standard corresponding to the third data stream on the processing device, wherein the first data stream standard is configured to assess the first property, the second data stream standard is configured to assess the second property, and the third data stream standard is configured to assess a third property, the third property being different from the first property and the second property;
determining, by the data stream analyzer, a third quality value for the third data stream by comparing the third data stream to a factor of the third data stream standard, wherein the first quality value, the second quality value, and the third quality value are values defined by a value rating scale; and
in response to the third quality value being greater than the first quality value and the second quality value, communicating the third data stream from the data stream analyzer to an input detector (claim 1).
synthesizing a third data stream by combining the first data stream and the second data stream;
determining, by the processing device, a first quality value for the first data stream by comparing the first data stream to a factor of a data stream standard;
determining, by the processing device, a second quality value for the second data stream by comparing the second data stream to the factor of the data stream standard;
determining, by the processing device, a third quality value for the third data stream by comparing the third data stream to the factor of the data stream standard, wherein the first quality value, the second quality value, and the third quality value are values defined by a value rating scale;
selecting one of the first data stream, the second data stream, or the third data stream based on a highest relative value of the first quality value, the second quality value, and the third quality value; and
communicating the selected one of the first data stream, the second data stream, and the third data stream from the processing device to a data stream recipient;
producing, by the data stream recipient, a plurality of tertiary data elements based on the selected one of the first data stream, the second data stream, or the third data stream;
commutatively coupling the data stream recipient with a first tertiary recipient and a second tertiary recipient;
determining, by the data stream recipient, a first tertiary data element from the plurality of tertiary data elements to be communicated to the first tertiary recipient;
determining, by the data stream recipient, a second tertiary data element from the plurality of tertiary data elements to be communicated to the second tertiary recipient;
communicating the first tertiary data element from the data stream recipient to the first tertiary recipient; and
communicating the second tertiary data element from the data stream recipient to the second tertiary recipient (claim 2).
determine a first quality value for the first data stream by comparing the first data stream to a factor of the first data stream standard when the condition is satisfied or by comparing the first data stream to a factor of the second data stream standard when the condition is not satisfied;
determine a second quality value for the second data stream by comparing the second data stream to the factor of the first data stream standard when the condition is satisfied or by comparing the second data stream to the factor of the second data stream standard when the condition is not satisfied;
combine the first data stream with the second data stream to synthesize a third data stream;
determine a third quality value for the third data stream by comparing the third data stream to the factor of the first data stream standard when the condition is satisfied or by comparing the third data stream to the factor of the second data stream standard when the condition is not satisfied, wherein the first quality value, the second quality value, and the third quality value are values defined by a value rating scale;
in response to the third quality value being greater than the first quality value and the second quality value, an input detector instantiated on the processing device, the input detector being adapted to:
receive the third data stream from the data stream analyzer; and
to identify an input in the third data stream; and
an input executor instantiated on the processing device, the input executor being adapted to:
receive the input from the input detector; and
execute a control command corresponding with the input (claim 3).
These limitations, in conjunction with the other limitations of the independent claims, are allowable over the prior art.
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 JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Wing F Chan can be reached at (571) 272-7493. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights