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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 12-13 and 17-20 have been amended.
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, 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 1-5, 10-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane (US 9,967,234) in view of Levi (US 2022/0131826) and further in view of Staubly (US 2020/0342153).
Regarding claim 1, Crane disclose a method for routing video streams, the method comprising:
receiving, by a transmitting device in a source computing environment, an enriched video stream comprising enhanced datagrams, the enhanced datagrams including video packets of a video stream and metadata (receiving video and metadata from unsecure source by device 20; see at least Figs. 1-2 and col. 7, lines 43-56 and col. 12, lines 21-67);
dividing, by the transmitting device, the enriched video stream into an unenriched video stream and enrichment data (separating the metadata from the video; see at least Fig. 1, block 10 and col. 8, lines 24-54 and col. 10, lines 24-41);
separately transmitting, by the transmitting device, the unenriched video stream and the enrichment data to a guard protecting a destination computing environment (both video and metadata are transmitted to a Data Flow Guard; see at least Fig. 1 and col. 7, lines 43-56 and col. 12, lines 21-67);
separately receiving, from the guard by a landing device in the destination computing environment, a transcoded unenriched video stream and filtered enrichment data (receiving by camera 40 a video encoded in a MISP 6.4 format and metadata; see at least Fig. 1 and col. 10, line 24-col. 11, line 44);
rejoining the transcoded unenriched video stream and the filtered enrichment data to form a transcoded enriched video stream (reintegrating the metadata back into the video stream; see at least Fig. 1 and col. 11, lines 23-29);
receiving, by a destination video broker in the destination computing environment, the transcoded enriched video stream (receiving by a secure destination 55 the video and the metadata; see at least Fig. 1 and col. 7, lines 43-56).
Crane discloses the video and metadata but is not clear about routing metadata including a unique identifier for a video stream, extracting the unique identifier from a stream, based on the extracted unique identifier, identifying a destination address for the stream, and transmitting packets to a destination device having the destination address. Furthermore, Crane discloses the guard, but is not clear about that the guard being a device.
Levi discloses routing metadata including a unique identifier for a video stream, extracting the unique identifier from a stream, based on the extracted unique identifier, identifying a destination address for the stream, and transmitting packets to a destination device having the destination address; routers forward packets on the basis of their layer-3 destination address (i.e. DGID), wherein the DGID is extracted from the packet; see at least paragraphs 0024, 0040, 0047, 0052 and 0065.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Crane by the teachings of Levi by having the above limitations so to be able to use address mapping to route packets across multiple subnetworks; see at least the Abstract.
Crane in view of Levi discloses a guard in terms of Data Flow Guard; Crane as above, and a Filter; as in Levi, but are not clear about the guard being a device.
Staubly discloses the above missing limitation; a secure one-way network hardware-based gateway for transferring data between a source network and a destination network or vice versa; see at least paragraphs 0003 and 0011.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Crane in view of Levi by the teachings of Staubly by having the above limitations so to be able to transmit data from a source network to a destination network via a secure one-way; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 2, Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein rejoining the transcoded unenriched video stream and the filtered enrichment data includes generating filtered enhanced datagrams that include video packets from the transcoded unenriched video stream and routing metadata including the unique identifier extracted from the enrichment data (the reintegrating of Crane; see at least Fig. 1 and col. 11, lines 23-29 in combination with Levi’s unique identifier; see at least paragraphs 0024, 0040, 0047, 0052 and 006).
Regarding claim 3, Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly disclose the method of claim 2, wherein extracting the unique identifier from the transcoded enriched video stream includes extracting the unique identifier from the routing metadata of the enhanced datagrams of the transcoded enriched video stream (Levi; DGID is extracted from the packet; see at least paragraphs 0024, 0040, 0047, 0052 and 0065 in combination with Crane’s metadata; see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein dividing the enriched video stream comprises:
extracting unique identifier from the routing metadata (Levi; DGID is extracted from the packet; see at least paragraphs 0024, 0040, 0047, 0052 and 0065 in combination with Crane’s metadata; see at least the rejection of claim 1); and
removing the routing metadata from the enriched video stream (the separation of Crane; see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising generating the enhanced datagrams of the enriched video stream by:
receiving, by a source video broker in a source computing environment, a video stream having a source address (Crane; receiving by a secure destination the video and the metadata; see at least Fig. 1 and col. 7, lines 43-56 in combination with Levi’s source address; see at least paragraphs 0024, 0040, 0047, 0052 and 006); and
based on the source address of the video stream, identifying, by the source video broker, the unique identifier for the video stream based on the source address of the video stream (the identifying of Levi; see at least paragraphs 0024, 0040, 0047, 0052 and 006).
Regarding claim 10, Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the source computing environment is a low-trust environment and destination computing environment is a high-trust computing environment (Crane; unsecure or less secure source to a more source; see at least Fig. 1 and the Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein identifying, by the destination video broker, the destination address comprises:
accessing a routing table that stores corresponding destination addresses for multiple unique identifiers (Levi; accessing a routing table that provide access to mapping; see at least paragraphs 0031 and 0065-0067);
querying the routing table with the unique identifier (Levi; accessing a routing table that provide access to mapping; see at least paragraphs 0031 and 0065-0067); and
receiving, in response to the query, the destination address (Levi; accessing a routing table that provide access to mapping; see at least paragraphs 0031 and 0065-0067).
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly disclose the system of claim 12, further comprising the guard device that:
transcodes the unenriched video stream to produce the transcoded unenriched video stream (receiving by camera 40 a video encoded in a MISP 6.4 format and metadata; see at least Fig. 1 and col. 10, line 24-col. 11, line 44 in combination with Staubly’s hardware gateway); and
filters the enrichment data to produce the filtered enrichment data (receiving by camera 40 a video encoded in a MISP 6.4 format and metadata; see at least Fig. 1 and col. 10, line 24-col. 11, line 44).
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly disclose the method of claim 17, wherein the guard device receives the unenriched video stream and the enrichment data on a particular channel of a plurality of channels operated by the guard (Crane’s Flow Guard or air gap; see at least col. 11, lines 13-22 in combination with Staubly’s hardware gatway).
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly and further in view of Schoen (US 2018/0324480).
Regarding claim 6, Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly disclose the method of claim 1, and discloses the enrichment data, but is not clear about wherein the data is in an Extensible Markup Language (XML).
Schoen discloses the above missing limitation; data object may comprise structured data, e.g. according to JSON or XML format; see at least paragraphs 0087-0090.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly by the teachings of Schoen by having the above limitations so to be able to define multiple video stream; see at least paragraph 0089.
Regarding claim 14, Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly disclose the system of claim 12, and discloses the enrichment data, but is not clear about wherein the data is in an Extensible Markup Language (XML) format or a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON).
Schoen discloses the above missing limitation; data object may comprise structured data, e.g. according to JSON or XML format; see at least paragraphs 0087-0090.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly by the teachings of Schoen by having the above limitations so to be able to define multiple video stream; see at least paragraph 0089.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly and further in view of Bertram (US 2008/0013536).
Regarding claim 7, Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly disclose the method of claim 1, and disclose the routing metadata, but are not clear about a modified null packet.
Bertram discloses the above missing limitation; detecting NULL packet ad replacing some or all with asset packets; see at least paragraphs 0035, 0045 and 0062.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly by the teachings of Bertram by having the above limitations so to inject assets into a content stream; see at least paragraph 0003.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claims 8-9, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly and further in view of Clarke (US 2014/0139737).
Regarding claim 8, Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly disclose the method of claim 1, and disclose the at least one of the enhanced datagrams, the routing packet and the routing metadata; as in the rejection of claim 1, but are not clear about a datagram comprises up to seven transport stream (TS) packets.
Clarke discloses the above missing limitation; a UDP packet comprises a number (seven) of TS packets; see at least paragraph 0033. And 0035.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly by the teachings of Clarke by having the above limitations so to be able to filter a digital signal transmitted in a protocol featuring multi-level packetization from a first server to a second server; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 9, Crane in view of Levi and further in view of Staubly and further in view of Clarke disclose the e method of claim 8, wherein:
the routing packet further comprises a reference number and control data indicating whether the enhanced datagram is a start of the video stream, a middle of the video stream, or an end of the video stream; and the enrichment data further comprises at least one of the reference number or the control data (the combination of Crane’s routing packet and enrichment data; see at least the rejection of claim 1 and Clarke’s packet; see at least Fig. 6).
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 ET.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights