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 . This action is in response to the communication filed on 9/6/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Priority
This application claims priority of FR2309428, filed 9/7/2023. The assignee of record is ORANGE. The listed inventor(s) is/are: Marchand, Hervé; RIVOALEN, Mathieu.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/9/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are 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.
Claims 1 & 10 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.
The claim is indefinite because the phrase “changing a location of the processing entity in the set of data processing devices over time as a whole” does not provide what degree of transfer/displacement occurs.
Claims 2-8 rejected for being dependent on a rejected based claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 & 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wolcott et al. (US 20140280701 A1, published 9/18/2014; hereinafter Wol).
For Claim 1, Wol teaches a management method implemented by a management entity and comprising: managing processing of a data stream carried out by a processing entity in a local area network comprising a set of data processing devices (Wol ¶ 0032. Please see screenshot of Wol Fig. 5A below, thank you:
PNG
media_image1.png
890
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), by changing a location of the processing entity in the set of data processing devices over time as a whole (Wol ¶ 0088 a resource broker may continually monitor the network topology information to determine if an online device ever becomes unavailable or offline. When a device becomes offline or unavailable, a resource broker may determine to reassign a resource to a different device).
For Claim 2, Wol teaches the management method according to Claim 1, comprising choosing the location of the processing on the basis of processing capabilities of the processing devices (Wol ¶ 0081, Figs. 5A & 6. Please see screenshot of Wol Fig. 6 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image2.png
890
370
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
For Claim 3, Wol teaches the management method according to Claim 2, wherein the choice is made by comparing processing capabilities of devices of the local area network and by selecting a device based on the comparison (Wol Fig. 6 ¶ 0077-0081).
For Claim 4, Wol teaches the management method according to Claim 2, wherein the processing capabilities include a volatile memory size (Wol ¶ 0024, 0051-0052 resource availability information based on available RAM).
For Claim 6, Wol teaches the management method according to Claim 1, wherein the local area network comprises a home gateway and the home gateway routes the data stream to the location of the processing entity (Wol ¶ 0032-0035, Fig.s 4, 6 and 8. Please see screenshot of Wol Fig. 1 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image3.png
762
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
For Claim 7, Wol teaches the management method according to Claim 1, wherein the data processing devices are able to receive the data stream from a communication network (Wol Figs. 1, 4, 6, 8 and various paragraphs to include ¶ 0021-0024).
For Claim 8, Wol teaches a management entity for managing processing of a data stream in a local area network comprising a set of data processing devices, wherein the management entity comprises: a processor configured to request displacement of a location of the processing in said set of data processing devices (Wol ¶ 0032, 0088, Fig. 5A).
For Claim 9, Wol teaches the playback device of the set of processing devices and comprising the management entity as defined in Claim 8 (Wol Figs. 1 & 4).
For Claim(s) 10, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wol in view of Kaufman (US 20130166765 A1, published 6/27/2013; hereinafter Kau).
For Claim 5, Wol teaches the management method according to Claim 4, Wol does not explicitly teach wherein the processing entity is able to process a data stream associated with an encoding bit rate, and the choice of an installation location of the processing entity also depends on said encoding bit rate of the data stream to be processed.
However, Kau teaches wherein the processing entity is able to process a data stream associated with an encoding bit rate, and the choice of an installation location of the processing entity also depends on said encoding bit rate of the data stream to be processed (Kau ¶ 0100, 0103, Claim 1, please see screenshot of Kau Fig. 3B below, thank you:
PNG
media_image4.png
612
814
media_image4.png
Greyscale
).
Kau and Wol are analogous art because they are both related to streaming.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the insertion techniques of Kau with the system of Wol because the available encoding bit-rates can be know prior to the insertion (Kau ¶ 0100).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below, thank you:
i. US 10992796 B1
Please see PTO-892 for additional listing of relevant prior art made of record but not relied upon, thank you.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Moo Jeong can be reached on 571-272-9617.
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.
/MICHAEL A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights