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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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., non-tunable devices) 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).
Applicant argues that Carr does not teach “a tuner reservation identifier” and sending to a different device the tuner reservation identifier. The examiner relies in the newly found reference to Budow et al., US 5,521,631 for these limitations as cited on the office action below.
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.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Carr et al., US 5,608,446 in view of Budow et al., US 5,521,631.
Regarding claim 1, Carr discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a first computing device (48 figure 1) from a second computing device (70 figure 1), a request for a content resource (col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13);
determining, based on the request for the content resource, a third computing device (74 figure 1) to provide access to the content resource and an RF signal to tune to in order to provide the data associated with the third computing device (col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13); and sending, to the second computing device, the RF signal (col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Although, Carr teaches tuning to a channel that carries the information requested by the user and deliver the information to the user (col. 5, lines 51-64); Carr fails to spell out providing a tuner reservation identifier associated with a third computing device and sending, to the second computing device, the tuner reservation identifier.
In an analogous art, Budow discloses providing a tuner reservation identifier associated with a third computing device and sending, to the second computing device, the tuner reservation identifier (Col. 9, line 65 to col. 10, line 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr’s method with the teachings of Budow. This is standard in the art. The motivation would have been to tune to the correct channel for the benefit of delivering the desired media.
Regarding claim 2, Carr and Budow disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the request for the content resource indicates a capability of the second computing device and wherein determining the third computing device is further based on the capability of the second computing device (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 3, Carr and Budow disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the request for the content resource further comprises an identifier of the second computing device and wherein determining the third computing device comprises authenticating the identifier of the second computing device (Carr col. 3, lines 19-25).
Regarding claim 4, Carr and Budow disclose the method of claim 1, wherein determining the third computing device comprises determining an availability of the third computing device to provide a tuning service associated with the request for the content resource (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 5, Carr and Budow disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising sending, to the third computing device, the tuner reservation identifier (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 6, Carr and Budow disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising sending, to the second computing device, an identifier of the third computing device (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 7, Carr discloses an apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and memory storing processor-executable instructions (figure 1) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
receive, from a first computing device (70 figure 1), a request for a content resource (col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13);
determine, based on the request for the content resource, a second computing device (74 figure 1) to provide access to the content resource and an RF signal to tune to in order to provide the data associated with the third computing device (col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13); and sending, to the second computing device, the RF signal (col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Although, Carr teaches tuning to a channel that carries the information requested by the user and deliver the information to the user (col. 5, lines 51-64); Carr fails to spell out providing a tuner reservation identifier associated with a second computing device and sending, to the first computing device, the tuner reservation identifier.
In an analogous art, Budow discloses providing a tuner reservation identifier associated with a second computing device and sending, to the first computing device, the tuner reservation identifier (Col. 9, line 65 to col. 10, line 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr’s apparatus with the teachings of Budow. This is standard in the art. The motivation would have been to tune to the correct channel for the benefit of delivering the desired media.
Regarding claim 8, Carr and Budow disclose the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the request for the content resource indicates a capability of the first computing device and wherein the processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to determine the second computing device, further cause the apparatus to determine the second computing device based on the capability of the first computing device (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 9, Carr and Budow disclose the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the request for the content resource further comprises an identifier of the second computing device and wherein the processor- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to determine the second computing device, cause the apparatus to authenticate the identifier of the second computing device (Carr col. 3, lines 19-25).
Regarding claim 10, Carr and Budow disclose the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to determine the second computing device, cause the apparatus to determine an availability of the second computing device to provide a tuning service associated with the request for the content resource (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 11, Carr and Budow disclose the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to send, to the second computing device, the tuner reservation identifier (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 12, Carr and Budow disclose the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to send, to the first computing device, an identifier of the second computing device (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 13, Carr discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions that (figure 1), when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive, from a first computing device (70 figure 1), a request for a content resource (col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13);
determine, based on the request for the content resource, a second computing device (74 figure 1) to provide access to the content resource and an RF signal to tune to in order to provide the data associated with the third computing device (col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13); and sending, to the second computing device, the RF signal (col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Although, Carr teaches tuning to a channel that carries the information requested by the user and deliver the information to the user (col. 5, lines 51-64); Carr fails to spell out providing a tuner reservation identifier associated with a second computing device and sending, to the first computing device, the tuner reservation identifier.
In an analogous art, Budow discloses providing a tuner reservation identifier associated with a second computing device and sending, to the first computing device, the tuner reservation identifier (Col. 9, line 65 to col. 10, line 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr’s media with the teachings of Budow. This is standard in the art. The motivation would have been to tune to the correct channel for the benefit of delivering the desired media.
Regarding claim 14, Carr and Budow disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the request for the content resource indicates a capability of the first computing device and wherein the processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the second computing device, further cause the at least one processor to determine the second computing device based on the capability of the first computing device (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 15, Carr and Budow disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the request for the content resource further comprises an identifier of the second computing device and wherein the processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the second computing device, cause the at least one processor to authenticate the identifier of the second computing device (Carr col. 3, lines 19-25).
Regarding claim 16, Carr and Budow disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the second computing device, cause the at least one processor to determine an availability of the second computing device to provide a tuning service associated with the request for the content resource (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 17, Carr and Budow disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to send, to the second computing device, the tuner reservation identifier (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 18, Carr and Budow disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to send, to the first computing device, an identifier of the second computing device (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 19, Carr discloses a system comprising:
a first computing device (48 figure 1) configured to:
receive, from a second computing device (70 figure 1), a request for a content resource (col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13);
determine, based on the request for the content resource, a third computing device (74 figure 1) to provide access to the content resource and an RF signal to tune to in order to provide the data associated with the third computing device (col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13); and
send, to the first computing device, the RF signal (col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13); and
the second computing device configured to:
send the request for the content resource (col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13); and
receive the RF signal (col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Although, Carr teaches tuning to a channel that carries the information requested by the user and deliver the information to the user (col. 5, lines 51-64); Carr fails to spell out providing a tuner reservation identifier associated with a third computing device and sending, to the first computing device, the tuner reservation identifier.
In an analogous art, Budow discloses providing a tuner reservation identifier associated with a third computing device and sending, to the first computing device, the tuner reservation identifier (Col. 9, line 65 to col. 10, line 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr’s system with the teachings of Budow. This is standard in the art. The motivation would have been to tune to the correct channel for the benefit of delivering the desired media.
Regarding claim 20, Carr and Budow disclose the system of claim 19, wherein the request for the content resource indicates a capability of the second computing device and wherein to determine the third computing device is further based on the capability of the second computing device (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 21, Carr and Budow disclose the system of claim 19, wherein the request for the content resource further comprises an identifier of the second computing device and wherein to determine the third computing device, the first computing device is configured to authenticate the identifier of the second computing device (Carr col. 3, lines 19-25).
Regarding claim 22, Carr and Budow disclose the system of claim 19, wherein to determine the third computing device, the first computing device is configured to determine an availability of the third computing device to provide a tuning service associated with the request for the content resource (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 23, Carr and Budow disclose the system of claim 19, wherein the first computing device is further configured to send, to the third computing device, the tuner reservation identifier (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Regarding claim 24, Carr and Budow disclose the system of claim 19, wherein the first computing device is further configured to send, to the second computing device, an identifier of the third computing device (Carr col. 2, line 60 to col. 5 line 13).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 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 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.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights