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
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 18/983,481 filed 12/17/2024. Claims 21-40 are pending and have been examined.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/03/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim does not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations:
one or more input modules to receive;
a signal splitter to extract;
at least one video compression module to compress;
an output module for transmitting;
a signal feed forward configured to select;
a multiplexer and router (M&R) for multiplexing;
have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “to” coupled with functional language “receive,” “extract,” “compress,” “transmitting,” “select” and “multiplexing” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 21-30 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Figs. 1A, 1B, 4 and paragraphs [0056]-[0061], [0081]-[0129] of the published application.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 21-25, 27, 28, 30-35, 37, 38 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 9 and 12-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,013 in view of Rahrer (US 7,913,277).
Application No. 18/983,481
U.S. Patent No. 12,207,013
21. (New) An input card for processing at least one high bandwidth media stream to generate at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream, the input card comprising:
1. A media router for down-sampled video routing, comprising:
a backplane including a plurality of backplane connections;
at least one input card, comprising:
one or more input modules to receive the at least one high bandwidth media stream;
one or more input terminals to receive at least one high bandwidth video signal;
at least one video compression module to compress the at least one high bandwidth video signal to generate a low bandwidth compressed video signal; and
at least one compression module to compress the at least one high bandwidth video signal to generate at least one low bandwidth video signal in accordance with a compression scheme; and
an output module for transmitting the at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream,
one or more output terminals being electrically coupled to the backplane, and configured to transmit the at least one low bandwidth video signal to the backplane;
However, the patented claims do not explicitly teach a signal splitter to extract at least one high bandwidth video signal from the at least one high bandwidth media stream, the at least one high bandwidth media stream comprising the at least one high bandwidth video signal and at least one associated signal; the at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream comprising the at least one low bandwidth compressed video signal and the at least one associated signal.
In an analogous art, Rahrer, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches a signal splitter to extract at least one high bandwidth video signal from the at least one high bandwidth media stream, the at least one high bandwidth media stream comprising the at least one high bandwidth video signal and at least one associated signal; (Figs. 2, 4: IRD 26 and extractor module 106 splits the transport stream into video stream 28a and metadata, col. 6 lines 32-35, col. 8 lines 45-48, col. 10 lines 18-23, col. 10 lines 31-34, col. 11 lines 13-22.) the at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream comprising the at least one low bandwidth compressed video signal and the at least one associated signal. (Fig. 2: Encoder 32 and TS formatter 34 create a transcoded transport stream including the transcoded video and metadata, col. 8 line 45 to col. 9 line 19.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims by a signal splitter to extract at least one high bandwidth video signal from the at least one high bandwidth media stream, the at least one high bandwidth media stream comprising the at least one high bandwidth video signal and at least one associated signal; the at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream comprising the at least one low bandwidth compressed video signal and the at least one associated signal, as taught by Rahrer, for the benefit of including original metadata content in the compressed media stream.
Claim 22 of the application corresponds to claim 1 of the patent.
Claim 23 of the application corresponds to claim 4 of the patent.
Claim 24 of the application corresponds to claim 5 of the patent.
Claim 25 of the application corresponds to claim 6 of the patent.
Claim 27 of the application corresponds to claim 1 of the patent in view of Rahrer col. 9 lines 11-19.
Claim 28 of the application corresponds to claim 1 of the patent in view of Rahrer col. 9 lines 11-19.
Claim 30 of the application corresponds to claim 7 of the patent.
Claim 31 of the application corresponds to claim 9 of the patent in view of Rahrer.
Claim 32 of the application corresponds to claim 9 of the patent.
Claim 33 of the application corresponds to claim 12 of the patent.
Claim 34 of the application corresponds to claim 13 of the patent.
Claim 35 of the application corresponds to claim 14 of the patent.
Claim 37 of the application corresponds to claim 9 of the patent in view of Rahrer col. 9 lines 11-19.
Claim 38 of the application corresponds to claim 9 of the patent in view of Rahrer col. 9 lines 11-19.
Claim 40 of the application corresponds to claim 15 of the patent.
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,013 in view of Rahrer (US 7,913,277) in view of Gazier et al. (US 2009/0201988), herein Gazier.
Consider claim 26, the patented claims combined with Rahrer clearly teach serial digital interface (SDI) signals.
However, the patented claims combined with Rahrer do not explicitly teach a signal feed forward configured to select one of: video signals, received from the one or more input modules and passed through the input card.
In an analogous art, Gazier, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches a signal feed forward configured to select one of: video signals, received from the one or more input modules and passed through the input card. (Fig. 5: Switch fabric 82 selects video signals, which have been passed through line cards 80, for output to network interface 84, [0037] Gazier.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims combined with Rahrer by a signal feed forward configured to select one of: video signals, received from the one or more input modules and passed through the input card, as taught by Gazier, to achieve the predictable result of distributing the media streams over the network.
Claim 36 of the application corresponds to claim 9 of the patent in view of Gazier [0037].
Claims 29 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,013 in view of Rahrer (US 7,913,277) in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0112395), herein Lee.
Consider claim 29, the patented claims combined with Rahrer clearly teach the M&R.
However, the patented claims combined with Rahrer do not explicitly teach a memory buffer configured to store the incoming media signals until all incoming signals requiring multiplexing are received and synchronized to a common time base.
In an analogous art, Lee, which discloses a system for video processing, clearly teaches a memory buffer configured to store the incoming media signals until all incoming signals requiring multiplexing are received and synchronized to a common time base. (Fig. 3: Re-multiplexer 305 includes buffers 307, 309 to synchronize the signals combined into the transport stream, [0052].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims combined with Rahrer by a memory buffer configured to store the incoming media signals until all incoming signals requiring multiplexing are received and synchronized to a common time base, as taught by Lee, for the benefit of ensuring the component signals of the transport stream are synchronous.
Claim 39 of the application corresponds to claim 9 of the patent in view of Lee [0052].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21, 22, 24-28, 30-32, 34-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gazier et al. (US 2009/0201988), herein Gazier, in view of Rahrer (US 7,913,277).
Consider claim 21, Gazier clearly teaches an input card for processing at least one high bandwidth media stream to generate at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream, (Fig. 5: Line card 80) the input card comprising:
one or more input modules to receive the at least one high bandwidth media stream; (Figs. 2, 4, 5: Access device 42 receives a plurality of video signals from video source 44, [0026], [0028], [0030]-[0032].)
at least one video compression module to compress the at least one high bandwidth video signal to generate a low bandwidth compressed video signal; (Figs. 4-6: Transcoder 52, 90 receives high resolution video which is then compressed, [0034], [0037]-[0042].) and
an output module for transmitting the at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream. (Fig. 9: Transcoded output 114 is output to client access device 322, [0029], [0039], [0059], [0060].)
However, Gazier does not explicitly teach a signal splitter to extract at least one high bandwidth video signal from the at least one high bandwidth media stream, the at least one high bandwidth media stream comprising the at least one high bandwidth video signal and at least one associated signal; the at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream comprising the at least one low bandwidth compressed video signal and the at least one associated signal.
In an analogous art, Rahrer, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches a signal splitter to extract at least one high bandwidth video signal from the at least one high bandwidth media stream, the at least one high bandwidth media stream comprising the at least one high bandwidth video signal and at least one associated signal; (Figs. 2, 4: IRD 26 and extractor module 106 splits the transport stream into video stream 28a and metadata, col. 6 lines 32-35, col. 8 lines 45-48, col. 10 lines 18-23, col. 10 lines 31-34, col. 11 lines 13-22.) the at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream comprising the at least one low bandwidth compressed video signal and the at least one associated signal. (Fig. 2: Encoder 32 and TS formatter 34 create a transcoded transport stream including the transcoded video and metadata, col. 8 line 45 to col. 9 line 19.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gazier by a signal splitter to extract at least one high bandwidth video signal from the at least one high bandwidth media stream, the at least one high bandwidth media stream comprising the at least one high bandwidth video signal and at least one associated signal; the at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream comprising the at least one low bandwidth compressed video signal and the at least one associated signal, as taught by Rahrer, for the benefit of including original metadata content in the compressed media stream.
Consider claim 22, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches a controller coupled to each of the at least one video compression module, wherein the controller is configured to control a compression scheme of the at least one video compression module. (Fig. 6: Control 110 controls how the video signals are encoded, [0039], [0040] Gazier.)
Consider claim 24, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches the compression scheme comprises at least one of a JPEG XS, JPEG2000, HT-J2K, JPEG-LS, H.264/ MPEG-4 AVC and Dirac compression scheme. ([0041] Gazier)
Consider claim 25, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches the at least one high bandwidth video signal comprises at least one of a serial digital interface (SDI) or an IP signal. (Output 28a is an SDI signal, col. 6 lines 32-35 Rahrer.)
Consider claim 26, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches a signal feed forward configured to select one of: serial digital interface (SDI) signals (Output 28a is an SDI signal, col. 6 lines 32-35 Rahrer.) and Internet Protocol (IP) signals, received from the one or more input modules and passed through the input card. (Fig. 5: Switch fabric 82 selects video signals, which have been passed through line cards 80, for output to network interface 84, [0037] Gazier.)
Consider claim 27, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches a multiplexer and router (M&R) for multiplexing the at least one low bandwidth compressed signal with the at least one associated signal. (Fig. 2: TS formatter 34 combines the video and metadata into an MPEG transport stream, col. 9 lines 11-19 Rahrer.)
Consider claim 28, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches a controller is configured to control the M&R to determine if incoming signals should be multiplexed. (Fig. 2: Management system module 108 controls TS formatter 34 to combine the video and metadata into an MPEG transport stream, col. 9 lines 11-19 Rahrer.)
Consider claim 30, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches the compressed media stream is transmitted to at least one of: a downstream device and a transmitting device. (Fig. 9: Transcoded output 114 is output to client access device 322, [0029], [0039], [0059], [0060] Gazier.)
Consider claim 31, Gazier clearly teaches a method for processing at least one high bandwidth media stream to generate at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream, (Fig. 3) the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more input modules of an input card, the at least one high bandwidth media stream; (Figs. 2, 4, 5: Access device 42 receives a plurality of video signals from video source 44, [0026], [0028], [0030]-[0032].)
compressing, by a compression module of the input card, the at least one high bandwidth video signal to generate a low bandwidth compressed video signal; (Figs. 4-6: Transcoder 52, 90 receives high resolution video which is then compressed, [0034], [0037]-[0042].)and
transmitting, by an output module of the input card, the at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream. (Fig. 9: Transcoded output 114 is output to client access device 322, [0029], [0039], [0059], [0060].)
However, Gazier does not explicitly teach extracting, by a signal splitter of the input card, at least one high bandwidth video signal from the at least one high bandwidth media stream, the at least one high bandwidth media stream comprising the at least one high bandwidth video signal and at least one associated signal; the at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream comprising the at least one low bandwidth compressed video signal and the at least one associated signal.
In an analogous art, Rahrer, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches extracting, by a signal splitter of the input card, at least one high bandwidth video signal from the at least one high bandwidth media stream, the at least one high bandwidth media stream comprising the at least one high bandwidth video signal and at least one associated signal; (Figs. 2, 4: IRD 26 and extractor module 106 splits the transport stream into video stream 28a and metadata, col. 6 lines 32-35, col. 8 lines 45-48, col. 10 lines 18-23, col. 10 lines 31-34, col. 11 lines 13-22.) the at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream comprising the at least one low bandwidth compressed video signal and the at least one associated signal. (Fig. 2: Encoder 32 and TS formatter 34 create a transcoded transport stream including the transcoded video and metadata, col. 8 line 45 to col. 9 line 16.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gazier by extracting, by a signal splitter of the input card, at least one high bandwidth video signal from the at least one high bandwidth media stream, the at least one high bandwidth media stream comprising the at least one high bandwidth video signal and at least one associated signal; the at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream comprising the at least one low bandwidth compressed video signal and the at least one associated signal, as taught by Rahrer, for the benefit of including original metadata content in the compressed media stream.
Consider claim 32, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches selecting, by a controller coupled to the compression module, a compression scheme of the at least one compression module. (Fig. 6: Control 110 controls how the video signals are encoded, [0039], [0040] Gazier.)
Consider claim 34, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches the compression scheme comprises at least one of a JPEG XS, JPEG2000, HT-J2K, JPEG-LS, H.264/ MPEG-4 AVC and Dirac compression scheme. ([0041] Gazier)
Consider claim 35, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches the at least one high bandwidth video signal comprises at least one of: a serial digital interface (SDI) or an IP signal.
Consider claim 36, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches selecting, by a signal feed forward of the input card, one of: serial digital interface (SDI) signals (Output 28a is an SDI signal, col. 6 lines 32-35 Rahrer.) and Internet Protocol (IP) signals, received from the one or more input modules to pass through the input card. (Fig. 5: Switch fabric 82 selects video signals, which have been passed through line cards 80, for output to network interface 84, [0037] Gazier.)
Consider claim 37, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches multiplexing, by a multiplexer and router (M&R), the at least one low bandwidth compressed signal with the at least one associated signal. (Fig. 2: TS formatter 34 combines the video and metadata into an MPEG transport stream, col. 9 lines 11-19 Rahrer.)
Consider claim 38, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches determining, by a controller configured to control the M&R, if incoming signals should be multiplexed. (Fig. 2: Management system module 108 controls TS formatter 34 to combine the video and metadata into an MPEG transport stream, col. 9 lines 11-19 Rahrer.)
Consider claim 40, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches transmitting, by an output module of the input card, the at least one low bandwidth compressed media stream, comprises transmitting the compressed media stream to at least one of: a downstream device and a transmitting device. (Fig. 9: Transcoded output 114 is output to client access device 322, [0029], [0039], [0059], [0060] Gazier.)
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gazier et al. (US 2009/0201988) in view of Rahrer (US 7,913,277), in view of Gu et al. (US 2014/0301462), herein Gu.
Consider claim 23, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches the compression scheme.
However, Gazier combined with Rahrer does not explicitly teach the compression scheme is a visually lossless video compression scheme.
In an analogous art, Gu, which discloses a system for video processing, clearly teaches the compression scheme is a visually lossless video compression scheme. ([0067])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gazier combined with Rahrer by the compression scheme is a visually lossless video compression scheme, as taught by Gu, for the benefit of compressing the video content without losing information.
Consider claim 33, Gazier combined with Rahrer and Gu clearly teaches the compression scheme is a visually lossless video compression scheme. ([0067] Gu)
Claims 29 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gazier et al. (US 2009/0201988) in view of Rahrer (US 7,913,277), in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0112395), herein Lee.
Consider claim 29, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches the M&R.
However, Gazier combined with Rahrer does not explicitly teach the compression scheme is a visually lossless video compression scheme.
In an analogous art, Lee, which discloses a system for video processing, clearly teaches a memory buffer configured to store the incoming media signals until all incoming signals requiring multiplexing are received and synchronized to a common time base. (Fig. 3: Re-multiplexer 305 includes buffers 307, 309 to synchronize the signals combined into the transport stream, [0052].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gazier combined with Rahrer by a memory buffer configured to store the incoming media signals until all incoming signals requiring multiplexing are received and synchronized to a common time base, as taught by Lee, for the benefit of ensuring the component signals of the transport stream are synchronous.
Consider claim 39, Gazier combined with Rahrer clearly teaches storing, in a memory buffer of the M&R, the incoming media signals until all incoming signals requiring multiplexing are received, and synchronizing to a common time base. (Fig. 3: Re-multiplexer 305 includes buffers 307, 309 to synchronize the signals combined into the transport stream, [0052] Lee.)
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425