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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “wherein each of the data streams including data” in lines 7-8, which is grammatically incorrect. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “wherein each of the data streams [[including]]include data” or “each of the data streams including data”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 12 recites similar subject matter to claim 2 and is therefore objected to for similar reasoning.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “determine…that the identifier corresponding to at least one of the plurality of received data streams” in lines 9-10, which is grammatically incorrect. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “determine…[[that]] the identifier corresponding to at least one of the plurality of received data streams”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 12 recites similar subject matter to claim 2 and is therefore objected to for similar reasoning.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim is dependent on itself, but should depend on claim 2 (or any of preceding claims 3-10). Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-19 are 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the identifier provided by the permission server" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-11 are rejected based on their incorporation of indefinite subject matter in claim 2.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation "the server system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 recites the limitation "the at least one processor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the processor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the identifier provided by the permission server" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-19 are rejected based on their incorporation of indefinite subject matter in claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are drawn to a “computer readable medium”. The specification, although mentioning the term in various places and seemingly defining the term in paragraphs [0043] and [0115] of the specification, is still exemplary and thus broad in the definition. Thus, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP §2111), the claim as a whole covers both transitory and non-transitory media. A transitory medium does not fall into any of the 4 categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The claims may be amended by changing the “computer readable medium” to --non-transitory computer readable medium --, thus excluding that portion of the scope covering transitory signals. The scope of the disclosure given the state-of-the-art covers both transitory and non-transitory media, and this amendment would limit the claim to an eligible (non-transitory) embodiment.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 7-11 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,700 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely a broadened version of the Patent, and are therefore anticipated by the Patent.
Instant Application
US Patent No. 12,170,700 B2
2. A computer readable medium having stored therein instructions executable by a processor, including instructions executable to:
determine, by a permission server in communication with a plurality of clients, an identifier corresponding to at least one data stream of a plurality of data streams for each of the plurality of clients, wherein each client stores the identifier provided by the permission server;
1. A server system including: a permission server in communication with a plurality of clients, wherein the permission server utilizes client device information provided by the plurality of clients to determine an identifier corresponding to at least one data stream of a plurality of data streams for each of the plurality of clients; a memory; and at least one processor configured to multicast data to the plurality of clients, each client storing the identifier provided by the permission server and corresponding to at least one data stream of the plurality of data streams associated with the client, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive, by the processor, the plurality of the data streams, wherein each of the data streams including data;
receive the plurality of the data streams, each of the data streams including data;
determine, by the processor, that the identifier corresponding to at least one of the plurality of received data streams; transmit, to the plurality of clients, a mapping between each identifier and a respective multicast stream; and
determine the identifier corresponding to at least one of the plurality of received data streams; transmit, to the plurality of clients, a mapping between each identifier and a respective multicast stream; and
multicast data of the plurality of received data streams in accordance with the mapping.
multicast data of the plurality of received data streams in accordance with the mapping.
Similarly, claim 3 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 2 of the Patent, claim 4 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 4 of the Patent, claim 5 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 7 of the Patent, claim 6 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 8 of the Patent, claim 7 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 9 of the Patent, claim 8 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 10 of the Patent, claim 9 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 11 of the Patent, claim 10 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 13 of the Patent, claim 11 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 14 of the Patent. Furthermore, claims 12-19 of the instant application are method claims containing similar subject matter found in claims 2-9 of the instant application and are thus anticipated by claims 1-2, 4 and 7-11 of the Patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub. No. US 2007/0258466 A1 – generally teaches using stream or traffic identifiers for multicasting data to one or more recipient stations
US Patent No. 6,349,340 B1 – generally teaches establishing multicast channels for multicast communications based on hashing source identifiers.
Pub. No. US 2011/0044226 A1 – generally teaches determining and generating flow multicast identifiers.
WO 2020/135545 A1 – generally teaches determining multicast stream IDs and referencing multicast tables for multicast communications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM - 530PM.
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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/JONATHAN A BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights