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 .
Detailed Action
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application (Claim 9) that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed, approved immediately upon submission, and reduces waiting time for Terminal Disclaimer to be manually approved. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,346 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
U.S. Application No. 18/828,786 Claims
U.S. Patent No. 11,966,346 Claims
1, 13
1, 11
2, 14,
2, 12
3, 15
3, 13
5, 17
4, 14
6
5
7, 18
6, 15
8, 19
7, 16
9, 20
8, 17
10, 21
9, 18
11, 22
1, 11
12, 24
10, 20
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.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beel et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0169477 in view of Dinka et al. U.S. Patent No. 8,369,498. (Both references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement)
Per Claim 1, Beel discloses:
a system for connecting a processing device (processing device 31) to a functional device (cameras 39, 40, 41, microphones 38, or loud speakers (see Paragraph 120)) connected to or in a base unit (base node 36) of a wireless connection (Paragraph 117; Meeting room 30 provides a wireless network 50 for the interconnection and communication of devices.), the system comprising:
the base unit having a transmitter (Paragraph 129; Base node 36 has a receiver 63, which is preferably a transceiver.),
at least one functional device connected to or in the base unit (Paragraph 120; Cameras, microphones, and/or loud speakers can be connected to base node 36.),
and the processing device having a memory, a display device, an operating system (Paragraph 125; The processing device 31 may have a client display, a processing engine such as a microprocessor, a memory and an operating system.),
a third-party software (Paragraph 127; portable application 60), and having a driver and/or a client software (Paragraph 137; “pre-installed generic drivers”) which, when executed on the processing device, are/is configured to have the processing device interact directly with the base unit over a wireless connection (Paragraphs 137, 139, and 142; Media content can be wirelessly transferred from the processing device 31 to base node 36 by way of a screen scrape process. Paragraph 125 discloses that connection unit 47 can be integrated into processing device 31 and Figure 1b discloses the direct connection between the connector unit 47 and base node 36.),
wherein the base unit, via the transmitter, is configured to transmit data over the wireless connection to the processing device (Paragraphs 128 and 129 describe the connection unit 47 and base node 36 each comprising transceivers. Paragraph 125 discloses that connector unit 47 can be integrated into processing device 31. Figure 1b shows a direct connection for the transceivers of each device (31/47 and 36) to communicate data.),
wherein the driver and/or the client software are/is configured to present the at least one functional device to the operating system of the processing device as a virtual functional device (Paragraphs 313-317; A peripheral device presents a speaker to the processing device as a virtual audio speaker device, channeling audio to the speaker by capturing the audio with a device driver and streaming it to the base unit to which the speaker is attached.),
and wherein the client software is further configured to provide data transformations based on a type of functional data from the at least one functional device to the processing device (Paragraphs 71-72, 247-250, and 314-323; Beel describes decoding and decrypting audio data using encoders/encryptors specific to audio data and further teaches processing device 31 receiving from the base unit audio and video data from cameras and microphones.).
- Figure 1a of Beel is provided below for convenience:
PNG
media_image1.png
564
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Beel teaches web conference systems and electronic meeting systems (Paragraph 87), but does not specifically discuss the portable application 60 being used for “a Unified Communications call”.
However, Dinka teaches computer terminals 102 comprising client applications 110 for performing peer-to-peer VoIP calls (Col. 6 lines 7-39). The Dinka patent is owned by Skype, which produces the third-party Skype application used for peer-to-peer bi-directional communication and web-conferencing. Dinka further teaches the computer terminal 102 comprising an audio transceiver comprising a speaker and microphone, in the form of a handset/headset or a built-in speaker and microphone (Col. 6 lines 8-12).
- Figure 1 of Dinka provided below for convenience:
PNG
media_image2.png
494
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Dinka’s Skype application to be used as the portable application 60 of Beel because Skype is an application to be used by computing devices to provide multiparty voice and video conferencing capabilities (Col. 11 lines 26-34).
Per Claim 2, Beel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the client software and/or the driver are/is configured to present a functional device being a speakerphone to the operating system of the processing device as a virtual microphone and a virtual speaker (Paragraphs 120, 137, and 317; Client software on the processing device includes pre-installed drivers for communicating to a (virtual) audio speaker device and microphones, which constitute a speakerphone.).
Per Claim 3, Beel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the client software and/or the driver are/is configured to present a functional device being a videocam to the operating system as a virtual videocam device (Paragraphs 88 and 119-221; Client software on the processing device includes installed generic drivers for communicating to cameras, such as numerals 35, 39, 40, and 41.).
Per Claim 4, Beel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the client software and/or the driver are/is configured to present a functional device being a display to the operating system as a virtual display (Paragraph 119; Client software on the processing device includes installed generic drivers for communicating to display 44.).
Per Claim 5, Beel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the client software is configured to provide video data, optionally obtained by screen scraping, directly to the base unit, wherein the base unit processes the video data (Paragraph 127; Client software on the processing device includes installed generic drivers for screen scraping content of the client display. Paragraph 221 discusses transferring screen scraped data to the communications network and Paragraph 322 discusses the base unit processing (decoding) received video data.).
Per Claim 6, Beel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the functional data includes video data received from the base unit via the transmitter over the wireless connection (Paragraphs 119-120 and 288; The cameras collect video data and provide the video data to the base node via the transceivers.).
Per Claim 7, Beel discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the data transformations of the video data comprise decoding, compositing or decrypting the video data (Paragraphs 71 and 72; Beel teaches software code portion for receiving media content from the network and for displaying the media content on the display in accordance with a set of rules. Paragraphs 71-72, 247-250, and 314-323; Beel describes decoding and decrypting audio data using encoders/encryptors specific to audio data and further teaches processing device 31 receiving from the base unit audio and video data from cameras and microphones.).
Per Claim 8, Beel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one functional device, which is presented to the operating system as a virtual functional device, is one or more of a data capturing device, a microphone, a speakerphone, a speaker, display, a touchscreen, a projector, a camera, a video camera, and a webcamera (Paragraph 119 and 120; display 44, projector, camera 35, microphone 38, etc.).
Per Claim 9, Beel discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising means for encoding, optionally encrypting the data in the base unit or in the processing device (Paragraphs 67 and 162).
Per Claim 10, Beel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the virtual functional device is presented to the Unified Communication between the two or more processing devices (Paragraph 122; “an electronic meeting tool for communicating arbitrary media content between different users 37 (with their own processing devices 31)”).
Per Claim 11, Beel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to host the Unified Communication between two or more processing devices (Paragraph 117; “Each of the processing devices 31 can be a host device”.). Additionally, see the rejection of claim 1 with respect to Dinka teaching the Skype software application for hosting remote video conferencing (Col. 6 lines 7-39).
Per Claim 12, Beel discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising at least one fixed or a configurable endpoint of the virtual functional device, wherein the at least one fixed or a configurable endpoint is a data source or a data sink which is configured to store or emit data of the virtual functional device (Paragraphs 43, 50, 313-317; “endpoint of the virtual functional devices”, such as A/V components connected to the base unit. The endpoints can be a “fixed” mass storage device or “configurable” such as a virtual audio device. The endpoint is either fixed or configurable to provide A/V functions, such as a speaker or a display.).
Per Claims 13-22 and 24, please refer to the above rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-12, as the limitations are substantially similar and the mapping of the limitations is equally applicable.
Per Claim 23, Beel discloses the method of claim 13, further exposing a same type of functional device to the processing device as is connected to the base unit and which is presented to the operating system of the processing device as a virtual functional device (Paragraphs 43, 312-319, and 323; “With reference to the audio data on the processing device 31 such as a client PC, the audio is sent over a port using generic drivers such as over a USB port 8 using the standard built-in generic audio driver such as UAC driver 7…This information is then…transferred to the communications network…On the base unit 33 the audio information stream is recovered at a suitable communications interface such as the WiFi access point 22.” Therefore, when an audio functional device is connected to the base unit to play the audio stream received from the peripheral device, the same type of functional device (i.e. an audio device) is exposed to the processing device and the processing device is then able to access and use the functions associated with the remotely connected virtual functional device.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T MISIURA whose telephone number is (571)272-0889 - (Direct Fax: 571-273-0889). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Jung can be reached on (571) 272-3779. 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).
/Brian T Misiura/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights