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
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 8-9 and 15-16 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments and terminal disclaimer, see Remarks filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous Double Patenting rejection of the pending claims has been withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer
II. The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/30/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of USPN 11,870,660 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
III. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
IV. Claims 1, 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims listed above recite in some form that “the AVC provider is external to the mesh network”. This feature has not been disclosed or described in the specification to support this limitation in the claim. Clarification or correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
V. 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.
VI. Claims 1, 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARCIA, JR. et al (USPN 9,264,464) in view of MURPHY et al (US 2024/0089296).
Per claim 1, GARCIA, JR. et al teach a method comprising:
hosting in which client machines exchange media data streams with one another (col.10 lines 19-27, col.37 lines 8-45, col.38 lines 50-59, col.40 lines 55-67, col.43 lines 29-54—AVC computing device, AVC and client devices participating in the AVC exchanging A/V streams);
determining, that a first portion of the client machines are assigned to operate as parent nodes in a mesh network (col.41 lines 8-67, col.43 lines 4-43, col.44 line 6-col.45 line 43—assignment of first portion of client machines as a focus point computing device and the other client machines as a non-focus point computing devices); and
based on determining that the first portion of the client machines are assigned to operate as the parent nodes in the mesh network, delivering, by the AVC provider, a media data stream associated with the AVC to the first portion of the client machines, the first portion of the client machines being configured to provide the media data stream to a second portion of the client machines assigned to operate as child nodes of the mesh network (col.10 lines 41-55, col.12 lines 53-58, col.42 lines 1-11, col.44 lines 6-65—transmitting A/V from the focus point computing device to the non-focus point computing devices).
However GARCIA, JR. et al fail to explicitly teach “hosting, by an audio/video conference (AVC) provider an AVC, wherein the AVC provider is external to the mesh network…determining, by the AVC provider…and…delivering, by the AVC provider, a media data stream associated with the AVC”. MURPHY et al teach at least one primary node communicatively connected to at least one secondary node with the at least one primary node configured for connecting the plurality of networked devices to a broadcast controller or provider (Abstract, paras 0067, 0074-81), utilizing mesh network technology (para 0054), and the broadcasting controller devices implemented as remote devices either internally within the platform or externally to operate the platform (paras 0058, 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of GARCIA, JR. et al with MURPHY et al for the purpose provisioning client devices as primary and secondary nodes connected in a parent-child hierarchy in a mesh network with a provider/server remote to the network, which is well-known in the art for implementing a parent/primary-child/secondary relationship among networked nodes for audio-video communication.
Claims 9 and 16 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 8, GARCIA, JR. et al with MURPHY et al teach the method of claim 1, MURPHY et al further teach wherein the AVC provider is part of another network that is external to the mesh network (paras 0049, 0058, 0074, 0077—teach the broadcast controller may be implemented externally to the platform and remote distributed workflow).
Claim 15 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
VII. Claims 2-7, 10-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARCIA, JR. et al (USPN 9,264,464) in view of MURPHY et al (US 2024/0089296) and CELLA et al (US 2019/0041835).
a. Per claim 2, GARCIA, JR. et al with MURPHY et al teach the method of claim 1, and a connectivity score and capability information of the computing device on which the process executes to all other computing devices in the mesh network (col.15 line 54-col.16 line 2, col.16 lines 31-49, col.22 lines 23-34, col.23 lines 26-54), yet fail to explicitly teach “further comprising using an artificial intelligence network to determine a number of parent nodes in the mesh network”. CELLA et al teach the mesh network comprising an artificial intelligence network with parent and child nodes assigned to the client based on measured indicators of the node’s mesh capabilities (paras 0978, 1483, 1486-1487, 1494, 1497, 1547, 1556, 1589, 1753).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of GARCIA, JR. et al and MURPHY et al with CELLA et al for the purpose of incorporating the use and functionality of an artificial intelligence network within the mesh network in order to provide enhanced stability and scaling by monitoring, automating and troubleshooting problems in the network.
Claims 10 and 17 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 2 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
b. Per claim 3, GARCIA, JR. et al with MURPHY et al teach the method of claim 1, and a connectivity score and capability information of the computing device on which the process executes to all other computing devices in the mesh network (col.15 line 54-col.16 line 2, col.16 lines 31-49, col.22 lines 23-34, col.23 lines 26-54), yet fail to explicitly teach “further comprising: assigning the parent nodes in the mesh network”. CELLA et al teach the mesh network comprising an artificial intelligence network with parent and child nodes assigned to the client based on measured indicators of the node’s mesh capabilities (paras 0978, 1483, 1486-1487, 1494, 1497, 1547, 1556, 1589, 1753).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of GARCIA, JR. et al and MURPHY et al with CELLA et al for the purpose of assigning parent nodes in a mesh network, which is a well-known technique used in the art for replicating network components and off-loading functionality.
Claims 11 and 18 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 3 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
c. Per claim 4, GARCIA, JR. et al with MURPHY et al and CELLA et al teach the method of claim 3, GARCIA, JR. et al further teach the method wherein a client machine's past performance in a previously generated mesh network during an online conference is used as a factor to determine whether the client machine is assigned as a parent node (col.22 lines 3-34, col.23 lines 26-45—capability information of the focus point computing device; MURPHY et al: para 0054—mesh network with assigned primary and second nodes).
Claim 12 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 4 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
d. Per claim 5, GARCIA, JR. et al with MURPHY et al and CELLA et al teach the method of claim 3, GARCIA, JR. et al further teach the method further comprising: receiving a value for a mesh reliability variable; and based on the mesh reliability variable, determining how many of the client machines to assign as parent nodes (col.24 lines 11-44—determination of how many secondary links a computing device can establish and highest possible connectivity score; MURPHY et al: paras 0054, 0077—mesh network with assigned primary, second nodes and assignment indicator/threshold).
Claims 13 and 19 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 5 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
e. Per claim 6, GARCIA, JR. et al with MURPHY et al and CELLA et al teach the method of claim 3, GARCIA, JR. et al further teach the method further comprising: receiving a value for a mesh reliability variable; and based on the mesh reliability variable, determining how many of the client machines to assign as parent nodes (col.24 lines 11-44—determination of how many secondary links a computing device can establish and highest possible connectivity score; MURPHY et al: paras 0054, 0077—mesh network with assigned primary, second nodes and assignment indicator/threshold).
Claims 14 and 20 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 6 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
f. Per claim 7, GARCIA, JR. et al with MURPHY et al and CELLA et al teach the method of claim 6, GARCIA, JR. et al further teach the method wherein the mesh reliability variable is dynamically adjusted based on one or more factors, and wherein a configuration of the mesh network is dynamically altered based on the adjusted mesh reliability variable (col.22 lines 3-34, col.23 lines 26-45, col.24 lines 11-44—capability information of the devices to designate one of the computing devices in the mesh network as a focus point computing device; col.26 line 6-col.27 line 63—score is altered with dynamic adjustments based on changes in network).
Conclusion
VIII. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: US 2021/0119882; US 11271699.
IX. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
X. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D. SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571) 272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. 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.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights