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
The office action is a response to application filed on 5/19/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-19 in the reply filed on 5/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Wherein claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim 20 has been withdraw.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-4, 10,11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 20180039519 A1) in view of McEwen (US 20190073458 A1) in view of KONDAPAVULURU (US 20230083034 A1) in view of Richardson (US 20130154812 A1).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1, a method comprising:
Kumar teaches receiving, at the processing offloader module, instructions from the multimedia device based on determining that a processing bandwidth of the processing offloader module exceeds a threshold processing offloader bandwidth, wherein the processing bandwidth of the processing offloader module indicates available processing resources of the processing offloader module; (Kumar, [0051], [0077], [0080], [0086] [0090-0093, 0097-0099] The electronic device 102 may determine that a processing load has exceeded a threshold. The electronic device 102 may determine whether a peer device 104 is capable of executing one or more tasks based on the peer device 104 available processing capacity information and/or peer device 104 task capability information. For instance, a peer device 104 may be capable of executing one or more tasks if the peer device 104 has enough processing capacity and/or has task capability. The electronic device 102 may offload 208 the task to the peer device 104. [0077] Describes processing capacity including processing bandwidth. [examiner notes: the peer device 104 interprets to be the processing offloader module.])
rendering, at the processing offloader module, multimedia information based on the instructions; and (Kumar [0100] the electronic device 102 may receive one or more task outputs of one or more offloaded tasks from one or more peer devices 104. Here task examples provided in [0041] (i.e. device 102 processes the instructions and provides task output).)
Kumar does not teach: receiving, at a processing offloader module, a first communication indicating a request to provide an identification indicator identifying the processing offloader module to a multimedia device; and transmitting, from the processing offloader module, a second communication that includes the identification indicator identifying the processing offloader module, wherein at least one of the first communication or the second communication is encrypted; rendering, at the processing offloader module, multimedia information based on the instructions; and forwarding the rendered multimedia information from the processing offloader module to the multimedia device.
McEwen however in the same field of computer networking teaches 1.A method comprising: receiving, at a processing offloader module, a first communication indicating a request to provide an identification indicator identifying the processing offloader module to a multimedia device; and (McEwen, [0155] Peer monitor 830 can, for example, detect a short-range communication from another device and/or use a network multicast or broadcast to request identification of nearby devices (i.e. request to provide identification of device).)
transmitting, from the processing offloader module, a second communication that includes the identification indicator identifying the processing offloader module, (McEwen, [0155] Peer monitor 830 can, for example, detect a short-range communication from another device and/or use a network multicast or broadcast to request identification of nearby devices (i.e. request to provide identification of device).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar by incorporating the teachings of McEwen. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to detect identification of nearby devices (McEwen, [0155]).
Kumar does not teach: wherein at least one of the first communication or the second communication is encrypted; rendering, at the processing offloader module, multimedia information based on the instructions; and forwarding the rendered multimedia information from the processing offloader module to the multimedia device.
KONDAPAVULURU however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein at least one of the first communication or the second communication is encrypted; (KONDAPAVULURU, [0019] By selectively encrypting the packet, the device may conserve computing resources (e.g., processing resources, memory resources, communication resources, and/or the like), battery power, and/or the like of the device and the remote device that would have otherwise been used to encrypt the packet using the multiple encryption techniques and decrypt the packet using multiple decryption techniques.[0044] With respect to encryption algorithms for ESP, the client device and the remote device may negotiate to determine whether to use Data Encryption Standard (DES), Triple DES (3DES), Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), and/or the like.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar by incorporating the teachings of KONDAPAVULURU. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to use multiple encryption techniques to prevent the packet from being dropped by the firewall (KONDAPAVULURU, [0015]).
Kumar does not teach: rendering, at the processing offloader module, multimedia information based on the instructions; and forwarding the rendered multimedia information from the processing offloader module to the multimedia device.
Richardson however in the same field of computer networking teaches forwarding the rendered multimedia information from the processing offloader module to the multimedia device. (Richardson, [0042], [0069] The CEC proxy device 102 generates the control information in its own native format or another selected format. The processor system 114, executing the CEC proxy module 120, translates the control information received from the remote control 104 into corresponding CEC format control information for the personal computer 126 (i.e. fig. 1(102 - proxy device) is the offloader forwarding the information to the computer 126). The translated CEC format control information is then communicated from the CEC proxy device 102 to the personal computer 126 via its respective HDMI connector 106. (i.e. information is forwarded to the computer 126 via proxy module 120).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar by incorporating the teachings of Richardson. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to translate the control information to corresponding native format instructions (Richardson, [0039]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are substantially similar to claim 1, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
Claim(s) 11 is/are substantially similar to claim 2, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
Claim(s) 14 is/are substantially similar to claim 3, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
Claim(s) 15 is/are substantially similar to claim 4, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 2, the method of claim 1,
Kumar-McEwen-KONDAPAVULURU-Richardson teach wherein the processing offloader module is configured to connect to the multimedia device via a Universal Serial Bus (USB) connection. (Kumar, [0038] The communication interface 108 may enable the electronic device 102 to communicate with one or more other electronic devices (e.g., one or more peer devices 104). For example, the communication interface 108 may provide an interface for wired and/or wireless communications. In some configurations, the communication interface 108 may be coupled to one or more antennas 110 for transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency (RF) signals. Additionally or alternatively, the communication interface 108 may enable one or more kinds of wireline (e.g., Universal Serial Bus (USB), Ethernet, etc.) communication.)
Regarding claim(s) 3, the method of claim 1,
Kumar-McEwen-KONDAPAVULURU-Richardson teach further comprising: encrypting, at the processing offloader module, the rendered multimedia information, wherein forwarding the rendered multimedia information to the multimedia device comprises forwarding the rendered multimedia information that has been encrypted. (KONDAPAVULURU, [0019] By selectively encrypting the packet, the device may conserve computing resources (e.g., processing resources, memory resources, communication resources, and/or the like), battery power, and/or the like of the device and the remote device that would have otherwise been used to encrypt the packet using the multiple encryption techniques and decrypt the packet using multiple decryption techniques.[0044] With respect to encryption algorithms for ESP, the client device and the remote device may negotiate to determine whether to use Data Encryption Standard (DES), Triple DES (3DES), Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), and/or the like.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 4, the method of claim 3,
Kumar-McEwen-KONDAPAVULURU-Richardson teach wherein: the first communication is encrypted using a first encryption technique, and the rendered multimedia information is encrypted using a second encryption technique that is different from the first encryption technique. (KONDAPAVULURU, [0019] By selectively encrypting the packet, the device may conserve computing resources (e.g., processing resources, memory resources, communication resources, and/or the like), battery power, and/or the like of the device and the remote device that would have otherwise been used to encrypt the packet using the multiple encryption techniques and decrypt the packet using multiple decryption techniques.[0044] With respect to encryption algorithms for ESP, the client device and the remote device may negotiate to determine whether to use Data Encryption Standard (DES), Triple DES (3DES), Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), and/or the like.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 1 applies here.
2. Claim(s) 5 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of McEwen in view of KONDAPAVULURU in view of Richardson further in view of ZHANG (20190116587 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 5, the method of claim 1,
Kumar-McEwen-KONDAPAVULURU-Richardson do not teach wherein: the multimedia device is a first multimedia device in a networked environment, the networked environment comprises a second multimedia device, and the method further comprises: determining an updated processing bandwidth of the processing offloader module upon receipt of the instructions from the first multimedia device; and receiving, at the processing offloader module, instructions from a second multimedia device based on determining that a differential between the updated processing bandwidth of the processing offloader module and a maximum bandwidth of the processing offloader module exceeds the threshold processing offloader bandwidth.
Zhang however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein: the multimedia device is a first multimedia device in a networked environment, the networked environment comprises a second multimedia device, and the method further comprises: determining an updated processing bandwidth of the processing offloader module upon receipt of the instructions from the first multimedia device; and receiving, at the processing offloader module, instructions from a second multimedia device based on determining that a differential between the updated processing bandwidth of the processing offloader module and a maximum bandwidth of the processing offloader module exceeds the threshold processing offloader bandwidth. (Zhang, figs.1-14, Abstract, [0009-0010], [0029-0030], [0046-0057], [0060-0062] and [0087-0091]), based on bandwidth and other limitation(s) (threshold(s)) associated with the requesting mobile devise(s) (MDs), the relay MD(s), provides bandwidth bonding or aggregation between the MD relays and other MDs, forwards instructions to other stations or MD relays, to split the requested portion(s) of data streams via the MD relay(s) and/or other stations or sub-servers for processing of the portions of the video files and shares the portions of video files within other MDs accordingly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar by incorporating the teachings of Zhang. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to increase network capacity to promote direct communication between MDs and share video content with neighboring devices operated by users that have similar watching interests to help to reduce the traffic rate demand from the network operator (Zhang, [0028]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 5, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
Regarding claim(s) 18, the system of claim 17,
Kumar-McEwen-KONDAPAVULURU-Richardson- Zhang teach wherein at least one of the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device comprises a satellite device. (Richardson, [0050] The functionality of the media device 202, here a set top box, is now broadly described. A media content provider provides media content that is received in one or more multiple media content streams 218 multiplexed together in one or more transport channels. The transport channels with the media content streams 218 are communicated to the media device 202 from a media system sourced from a remote head end facility (not shown) operated by the media content provider. Non-limiting examples of such media systems include satellite systems, cable system, and the Internet. For example, if the media content provider provides programming via a satellite-based communication system, the media device 202 is configured to receive one or more broadcasted satellite signals detected by an antenna (not shown). Alternatively, or additionally, the media content streams 218 can be received from one or more different sources, such as, but not limited to, a cable system, a radio frequency (RF) communication system, or the Internet.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 19, the system of claim 17,
Kumar-McEwen-KONDAPAVULURU-Richardson- Zhang teach wherein at least one of the first multimedia device or the second multimedia device comprises a set-top box. (Kumar [0151] FIG. 10 illustrates certain components that may be included within an electronic device 1062 configured to implement various configurations of the systems and methods disclosed herein. Examples of the electronic device 1062 may include cellular phones, smart phones, computers (e.g., desktop computers, laptop computers, servers, etc.), tablet devices, media players, televisions, vehicles, automobiles, cameras, virtual reality devices (e.g., headsets), augmented reality devices (e.g., headsets), mixed reality devices (e.g., headsets), aircraft, healthcare equipment, gaming consoles, personal digital assistants (PDAs), set-top boxes, appliances, etc. The electronic device 1062 may be implemented in accordance with the electronic device 102 and/or the peer device 104 described in connection with FIG. 1.)
3. Claim(s) 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of McEwen in view of KONDAPAVULURU in view of Richardson further in view of Yao (US 20180276352 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 6, the method of claim 1,
Kumar-McEwen-KONDAPAVULURU-Richardson do not teach wherein the instructions from the multimedia device comprise user interface graphics rendering instructions.
Yao however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the instructions from the multimedia device comprise user interface graphics rendering instructions. (Yao, [0064] After the terminal switches the display environment of the CA from the REE to the TEE according to the TUI display request, a secure execution environment is provided to subsequent operations. The terminal may then invoke the TA to display, in the TEE, the TA interface, so that the user may perform an operation of inputting sensitive information on the TA interface (i.e. TEE user interface processes the received instructions).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar by incorporating the teachings of Yao. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to enhance security of input by a user (Yao, [0007]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are substantially similar to claim 6, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
4. Claim(s) 7-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of McEwen in view of KONDAPAVULURU in view of Richardson further in view of IIVONEN (US 20020067909 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 7, the method of claim 1,
Kumar-McEwen-KONDAPAVULURU-Richardson do not teach further comprising: synchronizing communications between the multimedia device and the processing offloader module.
IIVONEN however in the same field of computer networking teaches further comprising: synchronizing communications between the multimedia device and the processing offloader module. (IIVONEN, [0002-0003-processing capabilities of devices less bandwidth, displays, CPUs limitations, etc.], [0009-0012], [0026-0027], [0030-0036-blinking messages or notification] and [0039-0044], FIGs..4-5, SESS assigns selected nodes (GW, AP or SUT) to control groups of UTs within a network or on selected channel, stores records of AV, buffers segments of playback positions of the AV, transmits segments of AV recordings to UTs upon receiving PBS messages and mediates sync playback of the stored AV recordings at the UTs; stores contact information of all UTs “subscribers”; allows synchronized listening/watching recorded AV, receives PBS and communicates messages “synchronized playback status” to change the sync playback status of the UTs; where the PBS is associated with delay or delay variation caused by elements in the communications network between UTs; and further communicates some graphics: sync-streaming, messages/notifications with changing screen, blank screen with blinking messages or notification across UTs based on input or status conditions;)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar by incorporating the teachings of. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to IIVONEN (allowing synchronized listening and/or watching, the synchronization of the playback is based on a real-time video and/or audio signal sent to each terminal (IIVONEN, [0006]).
Regarding claim(s) 8, the method of claim 7,
Kumar-McEwen-KONDAPAVULURU-Richardson-IIVONEN teach wherein synchronizing communications between the multimedia device and the processing offloader module comprises synchronizing a proxy executing on the multimedia device and a multimedia device user interface (UI) of the processing offloader module, wherein the multimedia device UI is configured to process the instructions transmitted by the multimedia device. (RICHARDSON, abstract, [0012-0017], [0020-0026], [0034-0036] and [0038-0046], FIGs.1-4; note the target device is configured to receive the CEC format control information, interpret and translate the CEC control information outputs a UI graphics based on the received rendered multimedia, where the proxy generates control information in its own native format.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 9, the method of claim 1,
Kumar-McEwen-KONDAPAVULURU-Richardson-IIVONEN teach further comprising: receiving the instructions from the multimedia device to the processing offloader module and forwarding the rendered multimedia information from the processing offloader module to the multimedia device simultaneously so that the processing offloader module and the second multimedia device receive information simultaneously.(IIVONEN, [0030-0037] and [0039]-[0044], note SESS/GW/SUT stores records of AV, buffers segments of playback positions of the AV, transmits segments of AV recordings to UTs upon receiving PBS messages and mediates sync playback of the stored AV recordings at the UTs; allows synchronized listening/watching recorded AV, receives PBS and communicates messages “synchronized playback status” to change the sync playback status of the UTs; real-time recordings of content including timing markers, each of which indicates an internal position within the recording; dynamically changes playback status to maintain synchronization of playback of content between the UTs (specific groups); furthermore the streams can be received via the gateway or from two or more servers on the network; the SESS/GW/SUT, in the alternate instructs UT(s) to record content and sync the recorded content stream for display; maintains synchronization for sync playback of the recorded stream to control playback status or presentation changes or conditions and dynamically modifies the playback status accordingly); sync messages to the UTs, synchronizes the clocks in the different UTs and in response the UTs slow down or speed up “dynamically changing playbacks within a time interval of offset” based on bandwidth limitations; the SESS/GW/SUT communicates messages “synchronized playback status” to change the sync playback status of the UTs including generating UI graphics: interactive menus or browsers that generates: playback changes or status, Notifications, blank screen with blinking message, generate video clips, etc., and rendering instructions with the UI graphics to the plurality of UTs.)
The same motivation to combine as the dependent claim 7 applies here.
Claim(s) 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 7, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WUJI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0365. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK SRIVASTAVA can be reached on (571) 272-7304. 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.
/WUJI CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights