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 .
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,798,249 in view of Lemberger et al., US 2018/0101734.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application possesses the same limitations as claims 1-19 of the patented case US 10,798,249. US 10,798,249 does not disclose cause the video stream from the camera to the at least one server to be terminated in response to determining that at least one user device of the number of user devices is not receiving the video stream from the at least one server. Lemberger discloses cause the video stream from the camera to the at least one server to be terminated in response to determining that at least one user device of the number of user devices is not receiving the video stream from the at least one server (paragraph 254-255). 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 Kasmir’s system with the teachings of Lemberger. The motivation would have been to save bandwidth for the benefit of having available resources.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,368,753 in view of Lemberger et al., US 2018/0101734.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application possesses the same limitations as claims 1-20 of the patented case US 11,368,753. US 11,368,753 does not disclose cause the video stream from the camera to the at least one server to be terminated in response to determining that at least one user device of the number of user devices is not receiving the video stream from the at least one server. Lemberger discloses cause the video stream from the camera to the at least one server to be terminated in response to determining that at least one user device of the number of user devices is not receiving the video stream from the at least one server (paragraph 254-255). 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 Kasmir’s system with the teachings of Lemberger. The motivation would have been to save bandwidth for the benefit of having available resources.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,856,259 in view of Lemberger et al., US 2018/0101734.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application possesses the same limitations as claims 1-20 of the patented case US 11,856,259. US 11,856,259 does not disclose cause the video stream from the camera to the at least one server to be terminated in response to determining that at least one user device of the number of user devices is not receiving the video stream from the at least one server. Lemberger discloses cause the video stream from the camera to the at least one server to be terminated in response to determining that at least one user device of the number of user devices is not receiving the video stream from the at least one server (paragraph 254-255). 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 Kasmir’s system with the teachings of Lemberger. The motivation would have been to save bandwidth for the benefit of having available resources.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,590 in view of Lemberger et al., US 2018/0101734.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application possesses the same limitations as claims 1-20 of the patented case US 12,273,590. US 12,273,590 does not disclose cause the video stream from the camera to the at least one server to be terminated in response to determining that at least one user device of the number of user devices is not receiving the video stream from the at least one server. Lemberger discloses cause the video stream from the camera to the at least one server to be terminated in response to determining that at least one user device of the number of user devices is not receiving the video stream from the at least one server (paragraph 254-255). 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 Kasmir’s system with the teachings of Lemberger. The motivation would have been to save bandwidth for the benefit of having available resources.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasmir et al., US 2016/0284170 in view of Lemberger et al., US 2018/0101734.
Regarding claim 1, Kasmir discloses a system, comprising: a back-end network including at least one server for coupling between a camera and one or more user devices, the back-end network to:
cause a video stream to be transmitted from the camera to a number of user devices via the at least one server (figures 1-4; paragraph 110-111); and
cause the video stream from the camera to the at least one server to be terminated (paragraph 133-134 and 156).
Kasmir is silent about cause the video stream from the camera to the at least one server to be terminated in response to determining that at least one user device of the number of user devices is not receiving the video stream from the at least one server.
In an analogous art, Lemberger discloses cause the video stream from the camera to the at least one server to be terminated in response to determining that at least one user device of the number of user devices is not receiving the video stream from the at least one server (paragraph 254-255).
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 Kasmir’s system with the teachings of Lemberger. The motivation would have been to save bandwidth for the benefit of having available resources.
Regarding claim 2, Kasmir and Lemberger disclose the system of claim 1, the back-end network further configured to receive a request from a user device of the number of user devices to continue to transmit the video stream from the at least one server to the user device (Lemberger paragraph 254-255).
Regarding claim 4, Kasmir and Lemberger disclose the system of claim 2, wherein the back-end network is configured to cause the video stream from the at least one server to the user device to be terminated in response to lack of receipt of the request from the user device within a predetermined time interval (Lemberger paragraph 254-255).
Regarding claim 5, Kasmir and Lemberger disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising the camera and a modem for coupling the camera to the at least one server (Lemberger paragraph 133).
Regarding claim 7, Kasmir and Lemberger disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the back-end network includes data identifying whether or not the at least one user device is receiving the video stream from the at least one server (Lemberger paragraph 254-255).
Regarding claim 8, Kasmir and Lemberger disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the back-end network is remote from the camera and each of the number of user devices (Kasmir figure 1-4; Lemberger figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Kasmir discloses a method, comprising:
transmitting a video stream from a camera to a number of user devices via at least one server of a back-end network (figures 1-4; paragraph 110-111); and
terminating the video stream from the camera to the at least one server (paragraph 133-134 and 156).
Kasmir is silent about terminating the video stream from the camera to the at least one server in response to determining that at least one user device of the number of user devices is not receiving the video stream from the at least one server.
In an analogous art, Lemberger discloses terminating the video stream from the camera to the at least one server in response to determining that at least one user device of the number of user devices is not receiving the video stream from the at least one server (paragraph 254-255).
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 Kasmir’s method with the teachings of Lemberger. The motivation would have been to save bandwidth for the benefit of having available resources.
Regarding claim 11, Kasmir and Lemberger disclose the method of claim 10, further comprising terminating the video stream from the at least one server to a user device of the at least one user device prior to terminating the video stream from the camera to the at least one server (Lemberger paragraph 254-255).
Regarding claim 12, Kasmir and Lemberger disclose the method of claim 10, wherein terminating the video stream from the at least one server to the user device comprises terminating the video stream from the at least one server to a user device in response to lack of receipt of an indicator within a predetermined time interval indicating that a user of the user device is actively viewing the video stream (Lemberger paragraph 254-255).
Regarding claim 13, Kasmir and Lemberger disclose the method of claim 10, wherein transmitting the video stream from the camera to the number of user devices via the at least one server comprises: transmitting the video stream from the camera to the at least one server via first connection; and transmitting the video stream from the at least one server to the number of user devices via a number of second connections (Kasmir figure 1-4; Lemberger figure 1).
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasmir in view of Lemberger in view of Paxton et al., US 2004/0158858.
Regarding claim 3, Kasmir and Lemberger disclose the system of claim 2.
Kasmir and Lemberger are silent about the back-end network is further configured to update a database with a time in response to receipt of the request.
In an analogous art, Paxton discloses the back-end network is further configured to update a database with a time in response to receipt of the request (paragraph 98).
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 Kasmir and Lemberger’s system with the teachings of Paxton. The motivation would have been to know exactly the timing of the request for the benefit of properly manage the system.
Regarding claim 9, Kasmir and Lemberger disclose the system of claim 1.
Kasmir and Lemberger are silent about the back-end network is further configured to update a database based on user activity associated with each of the number of the number of user devices.
In an analogous art, Paxton discloses the back-end network is further configured to update a database based on user activity associated with each of the number of the number of user devices (paragraph 98).
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 Kasmir and Lemberger’s system with the teachings of Paxton. The motivation would have been to know exactly the timing of the request for the benefit of properly manage the system.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasmir in view of Lemberger in view of Kirmse et al., US 2013/0344896.
Regarding claim 6, Kasmir and Lemberger disclose the system of claim 5, wherein: the video stream is transmitted from the modem to the at least one server via a first connection; and the video stream is transmitted from the at least on server to the number of user devices via a number of second connections (Kasmir figure 1-4; Lemberger figure 1, paragraph 133).
Kasmir and Lemberger are silent about the connections are metered.
In an analogous art, Kirmse discloses the connections are metered (paragraph 36).
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 Kasmir and Lemberger’s system with the teachings of Kirmse. The motivation would have been to properly charge the user for the benefit of quickly providing the user with the media, this is standard in telecommunications.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasmir in view of Lemberger in view of Gibson et al., US 2014/0074991.
Regarding claim 14, Kasmir and Lemberger disclose the method of claim 10, further comprising determining whether or not the at least one user device of the number of user devices is receiving the video stream from the at least one server (Lemberger paragraph 254-255).
Kasmir and Lemberger are silent about determining using a database if a device is receiving the stream.
In an analogous art, Gibson discloses determining using a database if a device is receiving the stream (paragraph 54).
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 Kasmir and Lemberger’s system with the teachings of Gibson. The motivation would have been to have records of who is watching in order to properly distribute the media.
Claim 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasmir in view of Lemberger in view of Jin et al., US 2011/0296460.
Regarding claim 15, Kasmir discloses a system, comprising: at least one camera; one or more user devices; and a network including at least one relay server and configured to:
cause a video stream to be transmitted from the at least one camera to a number of user devices of the one or more user devices via the at least one relay server (figures 1-4; paragraph 110-111); and
cause the video stream from the at least one camera to the at least one relay server to be terminated (paragraph 133-134 and 156).
Kasmir is silent about cause the video stream from the at least one camera to the at least one relay server to be terminated in response to determining that at least one user device of the one or more user devices is not receiving the video stream from the at least one relay server
In an analogous art, Lemberger discloses cause the video stream from the at least one camera to the at least one relay server to be terminated in response to determining that at least one user device of the one or more user devices is not receiving the video stream from the at least one relay server (paragraph 254-255).
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 Kasmir’s system with the teachings of Lemberger. The motivation would have been to save bandwidth for the benefit of having available resources.
Kasmir and Lemberger are silent about the use of a relay server.
In an analogous art, Jin discloses the back-end network includes a video relay server communicatively coupled between the at least one camera and the one or more user devices (figure 1 and 7, Paragraph 42-63).
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 Kasmir and Lemberger’s system with the teachings of Jin. The motivation would have been to use less resources at the user device for the benefit of providing cheaper equipment to the user.
Regarding claim 18, Kasmir, Lemberger and Jin disclose the system of claim 15, wherein at least one of the network or a user device of the number of user devices is configured to terminate the video stream from the at least one relay server to the user device prior to termination of the video stream from the camera to the at least one relay server (Lemberger paragraph 254-255).
Regarding claim 19, Kasmir, Lemberger and Jin disclose the system of claim 15, wherein the video stream from the at least one relay server to the user device is terminated in response to lack of receipt of an indicator within a predetermined time interval indicating that a user of the user device is actively viewing the video stream (Lemberger paragraph 254-255).
Regarding claim 20, Kasmir, Lemberger and Jin disclose the system of claim 19, wherein the network is further configured to continue transmission of the video stream from the network to the user device in response to receipt of the indicator from the user device within the predetermined time interval (Lemberger paragraph 254-255).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasmir in view of Lemberger in view of Jin in view of Kirmse.
Regarding claim 16, Kasmir, Lemberger and Jin disclose the system of claim 15, wherein the video stream is transmitted from the at least one camera to the at least one relay server via first connection and the video stream is transmitted from the at least one relay server to the number of user device via a number of second connections (Kasmir figure 1-4; Lemberger figure 1, paragraph 133, Jin paragraph 42-63).
Kasmir, Lemberger and Jin are silent about the connections are metered.
In an analogous art, Kirmse discloses the connections are metered (paragraph 36).
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 Kasmir, Lemberger and Jin’s system with the teachings of Kirmse. The motivation would have been to properly charge the user for the benefit of quickly providing the user with the media, this is standard in telecommunications.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasmir in view of Lemberger in view of Jin in view of Gibson.
Regarding claim 17, Kasmir, Lemberger and Jin disclose the system of claim 15.
Kasmir, Lemberger and Jin are silent the network comprises at least one database including an active viewers list indicating which of the one or more user devices, if any, are receiving the video stream from the at least one relay server.
In an analogous art, Gibson discloses an active viewers list to determining if a device is receiving the stream (paragraph 54).
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 Kasmir, Lemberger and Jin’s system with the teachings of Gibson. The motivation would have been to have records of who is watching in order to properly distribute the media.
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.
OSCHTA I. MONTOYA
Examiner
Art Unit 2421
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421