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
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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. See 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over some claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,914.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, claims 1 and 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,261,914 recite all limitations in claim 1 and 20 (see claim 1). It does not explicitly teach determining, by the first client computing device, a maximum bitrate or a bandwidth for the peer-to-peer connection and generating, by the first client computing device, a peer-to-peer initiation signal that includes the maximum bitrate for the peer-to-peer connection. However, Roversor, in the same field of managing the P2p connections, discloses determining, by the first client computing device, a maximum bitrate or a bandwidth for
the peer-to-peer connection and generating, by the first client computing device, a peer-to-peer initiation signal that includes the maximum bitrate for the peer-to-peer connection (categorizing peers in different lists L(bn) according to the bitrate bn of the data content that the respective peer is rendering, see [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the time of the invention was made to incorporate Roverso’ teachings into the computer system of the US pat. No.12261,914 to control p2p connections because it would have avoid utilizing too much bandwidth and computational resources on powerful peers (see Roverso’s [0053]).
As to the remaining claims 2-19, they are also rejected under obvious type double patenting as stated in claims 1 and 20 above.
Art Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Roverso et al., US Pub. No.20150120952.
As to claim 1, Roverso discloses a non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, effectuate operations comprising:
determining, by a first client computing device, that a peer-to-peer connection condition
exists for the first client computing device such that the first client computing device is available
to establish a peer-to-peer connection with a second client computing device (deciding on the group of peers which can contribute their bandwidth to the 2.sup.nd tier peers, and is typically undertaken by a network device known as a tracker, being a network supervising device employed to coordinate the peers in the P2P network, see [0047] to [0048]),
determining, by the first client computing device, a maximum bitrate or a bandwidth for
the peer-to-peer connection and generating, by the first client computing device, a peer-to-peer initiation signal that includes the maximum bitrate for the peer-to-peer connection (categorizing peers in different lists L(bn) according to the bitrate bn of the data content that the respective peer is rendering, see [0055]); and
sending, by the first client computing device, a peer-to-peer connection initiation signal
to the second client computing device (a subset of these peers may be promoted as 1.sup.st tier peers for each bitrate in the network, independently from the bitrate of the data content the promoted peers are render, see [0054]-[0057]).
As to claim 2, Roverso discloses receiving, by the second client computing device, the peer-to-peer connection initiation signal to establish the peer-to-peer connection with the first client computing device (P2p connection algorithm processing, see [0059]).
As to claim 3, Roverso discloses determining, by the second client computing device, that the peer-to-peer connection condition is not satisfied such that the second client computing device is unavailable to establish the peer-to-peer connection with the first client computing device and storing, by the second client computing device, the peer-to-peer connection initiation signal in a signal cache associated with the second client computing device (upload capacity of a peer to be assigned, see [0047] to [0048]).
As to claim 4, Roverso discloses determining, by the second client computing device and subsequent to determining that the peer-to-peer connection condition exists for the second client computing device such that the second client computing device is available to establish the peer-to-peer connection with the first client computing device, that the peer-to-peer connection initiation signal is in the signal cache and processing, by the second client computing device, the peer-to-peer connection initiation signal from the signal cache (upload capacity processing, see [0047] to [0048]).
As to claim 5, Roverso discloses the maximum bitrate or the bandwidth for the peer-to-peer connection is determined based on a number of peer-to-peer connections that the first client computing device is connected to, a maximum bitrate or a bandwidth of the first client computing device, a maximum bitrate set by an administrator, or a maximum bitrate or a bandwidth identified by the second client computing device (maximum bandwidth processing, see [0055].
As to claim 6, Roverso discloses the peer-to-peer initiation signal includes a bandwidth advertisement or maximum bitrate advertisement (see [0055]).
As to claim 7, Roverso discloses determining, by the first client computing device, that the first client computing device is to be an initiator of the peer-to-peer connection with the second client computing device (see [0055] to [0056]).
As to claim 8, Roverso discloses determining that the first client computing device is to be the initiator is based on a first participant identifier of the first client computing device and a second participant identifier of the second client computing device (arranging peers in a P2P network, see [0050] to [0052]).
As to claim 9, Roverso discloses receiving, by the first client computing device, a peer-to-peer connection response signal from the second client computing device, wherein the peer-to-peer connection response signal includes a maximum bitrate advertisement of a maximum bitrate of the second client computing device or bandwidth advertisement of a bandwidth of the second client computing device and establishing, by the first client computing device, the peer-to-peer connection with a maximum bitrate that is a lesser of the maximum bitrate advertised by the first client computing device and the maximum bitrate advertised by the second client computing device (maximum bitrate processing in peers, see [0055] to [0056]).
As to claim 10, Roverso discloses providing or receiving, by the first client computing device, a media stream via the peer-to-peer connection (arranging peers in a P2P network, see [0050] to [0052]).
As to claim 11, Roverso discloses determining, by the first client computing device, whether a bitrate renegotiation condition is satisfied on the peer-to-peer connection and in response to determining that the bitrate renegotiation condition is satisfied, providing, by the first client computing device, a renegotiation signal to the second client computing device (see [0055] to [0058]).
As to claim 12, Roverso discloses that the bitrate renegotiation condition is satisfied when the first client computing device is going to add an additional peer-to-peer connection or the first client computing device is going to remove an established peer-to-peer connection (peers connection processing, see [0055] to [0058]).
As to claim 13, Roverso discloses the bitrate renegotiation condition is satisfied when the first client computing device receives a different renegotiation signal from the second client computing device (see [0055]).
As to claim 14, Roverso discloses determining whether the peer-to-peer connection is satisfied includes determining whether a proximity condition is satisfied, wherein the proximity condition includes determining whether a first participant that is associated with the first client computing device and that is at a first position in a coordinate grid environment provided by an application is within a distance of a second participant that is associated with the second client computing device and that is at a second position in the coordinate grid environment (peers processing, see [0055] to [0059]).
As to claim 15, Roverso discloses determining, by the first client computing device, a distance between the first participant and the second participant using a coordinate grid state that is generated by the first client computing device and that is generated using a participant position payload provided by a state server computing device, wherein the participant position payload includes participant position information associated with each participant in the coordinate grid environment (see [0055] to [0058])
As to claim 16, Roverso discloses the participant position information for each participant includes a current position in the coordinate grid environment of that participant, a position indicated in a user input for that participant and a time of the user input for that participant (see [0056] to [0059]).
As to claim 17, Roverso discloses wherein determining whether the peer-to-peer connection is satisfied includes determining whether a communication state is satisfied (see [0045] to [0048]).
As to claim 18, Roverso discloses the communication state is a broadcast state or a screen sharing state (content sharing between peers, see [0057] to [0058]).
As to claim 19, Roverso discloses the operations comprise steps for peer-to-peer mesh network bitrate throttling (see [0055]).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason set forth in claim 1.
Conclusion
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Khanh Dinh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.m. to 5:00 P.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Cheema Umar, can be reached on (571) 270-3037. The fax phone number for this group 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).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for patents
P O Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
/KHANH Q DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights