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 .
This action is in response to application 19/079,832 filed 3/14/2025.
Claims 1-20 and 28-34 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-20, 28, and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al., Pub No US 2023/0025827 (hereafter Shelton) in view of Mueck et al., Pub No US 2014/0254498 (hereafter Mueck).
Regarding Claim 1, Shelton discloses a method for transmitting medical video data on a communications channel of a medical data routing system [paras.0196-0203: Discloses surgical video streams transmitted through multiple communication pathways to a display, including redundant pathways for maintaining a surgical imaging/video feed. Thus, Shelton teaches transmitting medical video data on a communications channel of a medical data routing system.], the method comprising:
receiving video data from a medical video source [paras.0196-0197, 0203: Discloses obtaining source surgical imaging/video streams generated from light sensors and/or surgical imaging feeds. This limitation is taught because the computing system obtains surgical video data from a surgical imaging source.];
transmitting a first portion of the received video data to a display on a first link of the communications channel according to a first pre-defined specification [paras.0198-0199: Discloses dividing a video stream into different portions for transmission via multiple pathways, wherein, for example, every other picture frame may be transmitted via one pathway. The predetermined assignment of every other picture frame to the first pathway corresponds to the claimed first pre-defined specification because it defines, in advance, which portion of the received video data is transmitted over that pathway. Thus, a first portion of the received video data is transmitted to the display on a first communication pathway according to the defined frame-allocation scheme.];
transmitting a second portion of the received video data to the display on a second link of the communications channel according to a second predefined specification [paras.0198-0199: Discloses that the rest of the video stream, e.g., the remaining picture frames, may be transmitted via another pathway. The predetermined assignment of the remaining picture frames to the second pathway corresponds to the claimed second pre-defined specification because it defines, in advance, which portion of the received video data is transmitted over the second pathway. Thus, a second portion of the received video data is transmitted to the display on a second communication pathway according to the defined frame-allocation scheme.];
determining if the second link of the communications channel is operating [paras.0203, 0206: Discloses detecting an issue associated with a communication pathway/video stream and determining when a processing or transmission issue has occurred. This limitation is taught because Shelton monitors the redundant video-stream pathways and detects an issue affecting delivery of a video stream.]; and
Shelton does not explicitly disclose if the second link is determined to not be operating: transmitting the received video data on the first link of the communications channel according to a third pre-defined specification, wherein a bandwidth of the third pre-defined specification is less than the combined bandwidth of the first and second pre-defined specification. However, in analogous art, Mueck discloses storing a plurality of pre-defined configurations for transmitting data to a mobile device [paras.0110-0111], wherein the pre-defined configurations specify different sets and numbers of communication links to be used for transmission [paras.011, 0117, Table 3]. Mueck further discloses that a mobile device may trigger a chance from one pre-defined configuration to another, or the network/server may autonomously select another pre-defined configuration [paras.0013-0116]. More particularly, Mueck’s Table 3 discloses a pre-defined Configuration 2 in which two communication links are operated simultaneously, with video (base stream) and audio data transported over one link and incremental redundancy video data transported over a second link [para.0117, Table 3]. Thus, the two-link Configuration 2 corresponds to transmission according to the claimed first and second pre-defined specifications, because the pre-defined configuration establishes in advance the respective data to be carried over the first and second links. Mueck further discloses a pre-defined Configuration 1 in which only one communication link is used and all video and audio data is transported over that single link [para.0117, Table 3]. Accordingly, Mueck’s one-link Configuration 1 corresponds to the claimed third pre-defined specification. Mueck further teaches changing the current configuration when the quality of service (QoS) is insufficient. Specifically, the mobile device checks whether the QoS at which the service is provided is sufficient, and, when it is not sufficient, interacts with the third sub-entity 406 to change the current configuration. Alternatively, the network/server may perform the configuration change autonomously [paras. 0113-0116, 00125-00126]. Thus, a failure or degradation associated with operation of one of the communication links provides a reason for changing from a multi-link pre-defined configuration to another pre-defined configuration. Mueck further teaches that bandwidth is a characteristic associated with each communication connection [para.0049, claim 3] and expressly identifies data bandwidth as a communication parameter/requirement for providing a requested service [para.0150, Fig.10]. Mueck further teaches predefined configurations employing either a single communication link or multiple communication links operated simultaneously [para.0117, Table 3]. In the multi-link configuration, video base-stream and audio data are transmitted over one link while incremental redundancy video data is transmitted over a second link, whereas in the single-link configuration the video and audio data are transmitted over only one link [para.0117, Table 3]. Consistent with this disclosure, Mueck teaches that bandwidth-consuming data may be carried over an additional high-throughput communication link in a multi-link configuration [paras.0092-0093]. Thus, Mueck teaches or at least suggests that the single-link configuration provides less aggregated transmission bandwidth than the combined bandwidth provided by the first and second communication links operated simultaneously, thereby teaching or suggesting the claimed “bandwidth of the third pre-defined specification is less than the combined bandwidth of the first and second pre-defined specification.”
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 Shelton’s redundant first and second communication pathways in view of Mueck such that, upon determining that the second communication link is not operating, transmission is continued over the first communication link according to a predefined single-link configuration having less aggregate transmission bandwidth than the combined bandwidth of the first and second communication links, in order to maintain delivery of the video service despite degradation or loss of one communication link, as taught by Mueck, thereby providing the predictable result of continued service using the remaining available communication link [Mueck, paras.0092-0093, 0113-0117, 0125-0126, Table 3].
Regarding Claim 2, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 1, and Shelton further discloses wherein the received video data is captured at a first frame rate [para.0192: Discloses capturing surgical imaging at a 60 Hz combined frame rate. This teaches the claimed first frame rate because the surgical video data is captured as multiple frames at the disclosed 60 Hz frame rate.], wherein the first pre-defined specification comprises a second frame rate [para.0199: Discloses transmitting a portion of the video stream, e.g., every other picture frame, via one pathway. Thus, the first pathway transmits the video at a second frame rate corresponding to every other frame.], wherein the second pre-defined specification comprises a third frame rate [para.0199: Discloses transmitting the remaining picture frames via another pathway. Thus, the second pathway transmits the remaining video frames at a third frame rate.], and wherein the second and third frame rates added together equal the first frame rate [paras.0192, 0199: Discloses a combined frame rate of 60 Hz and dividing the video stream such that every other picture frame is transmitted cis one pathway and the remaining picture frames vis another pathway. Thus, the frame rates of the two portions together correspond to the combined rate of the original video stream.].
Regarding Claim 3, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 2, and Shelton further discloses wherein the second frame rate is approximately half of the first frame rate, and the third frame rate is approximately half of the first frame rate [para.0199: Discloses dividing the video stream such that every other picture frame is transmitted via one pathway and the remaining picture frames are transmitted via another pathway. Thus, each pathway transmits approximately half of the picture frames, corresponding to approximately half of the original frame rate.].
Regarding Claim 4, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the third pre-defined specification comprises a fourth frame rate [Mueck - paras.0113—0117, Table 3: Discloses changing from a multi-link configuration to a single-link configuration; and Shelton – para.0199: Discloses that when a pathway transmitting a portion of the video stream fails, the video stream portion successfully transmitted to the display system may be displayed. Thus, the frame rate at which the successfully transmitted video portion is displayed following failure of the other pathway corresponds to the claimed fourth frame rate.], and wherein the fourth frame rate is equal to the second frame rate [Shelton - para.0199: Discloses transmitting every other picture frame vis a pathway and, upon failure of the other pathway, displaying the successfully transmitted portion. Thus, the remaining displayed portion retains the frame rate of every other picture frame, corresponding to the second frame rate.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 1, and Shelton further discloses wherein the method comprises determining a type of video data received from a camera of the medical video source, and wherein the third pre-defined specification is based on the determined type of video data received from the medical video source [paras.0201-0203, 0207-0210: Discloses multiple surgical video/imaging feeds having different characteristics, including an HD video feed, a higher-quality video stream, and video streams with added visualization capabilities, and further discloses controlling and adjusting the processing and communication of the visualization feeds. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches determining the type/characteristics of the received medical video data and selecting the manner in which the video data is processed/communicated based on the determined video feed characteristics.].
Regarding Claim 7, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 6, and Shelton further discloses wherein if the determined type of video data received from the camera of the medical video source is endoscopic camera video data, then the third pre-defined specification comprises downscaling the received video data from the medical video source [FIG.5, paras.0231-0235: Discloses endoscopic imaging/video data and processing video content for display, including scaling down video/overlay content based on characteristics of the video frame. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches downscaling received endoscopic video data.].
Regarding Claim 8, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 6, and Shelton further discloses wherein if the determined type of video data received from the camera of the medical video source is endoscopic camera video data, then the third pre-defined specification comprises applying a light compression process to the received video data [paras.0201-0203, 0205-0210: Discloses surgical/endoscopic video streams and processing the video streams using processing modules, including processing directed to enhancing the surgical video stream and improving processing speed and reducing latency. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches applying a light compression process to received endoscopic video data to facilitate processing and transmission of the video stream.].
Regarding Claim 9, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 6, and Shelton further discloses wherein if the determined type of video data received from the medical video source is endoscopic camera video data, then the third pre-defined specification comprises transmitting a pre-defined region of interest (ROI) of the received video data [paras.0210-0213, 0231-0235: Discloses analyzing surgical/endoscopic video streams to identify, extract, and/or track portions or objects of interest within the video, and generating/processing video frames based on identified regions of interest. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches identifying and transmitting a pre-defined region of interest of the received endoscopic video data.].
Regarding Claim 10, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 6, and Shelton further discloses wherein if the determined type of video data received from the camera of the medical video source is radiology video data, then the first predefined specification comprises transmitting the video data at a first frame rate [para.0082: Discloses medical imaging/video data including X-ray imaging, which constitutes radiology video data; and paras.0197-0203: Discloses transmitting surgical imaging/video streams over communication pathways and controlling the communication of the video streams, including communication speed, throughput, and latency. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches transmitting radiology video data according to a first transmission specification/frame rate.].
Regarding Claim 11, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 6, and Shelton further discloses wherein determining the type of video data received from the camera of the medical video source comprises receiving identification data pertaining to the medical video source configured to identify the type of video data received from the medical video source [paras.0225-0228: Discloses identifying a surgical instrument/source using fiducial markers, including an electronic-readable code, and retrieving information associated with the identified surgical instrument, including the model and spatial properties thereof; and paras.0207-0209: Discloses different source video streams and processing modules based on characteristics of the imaging/video data. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches receiving identification data pertaining to the medical video source for identifying the type/characteristics of video data received from the medical video source.].
Regarding Claim 12, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 6, and Shelton further discloses wherein determining the type of video data received from the camera of the medical video source comprises determining a quantity of grayscale pixels in the received video data [paras.0161, 0182: Discloses analyzing pixel data of medical imaging/video data, including multiple pixel data associated with a Doppler analysis image. The analysis of the pixels provides a determination of the amount/quantity of pixels exhibiting particular image characteristics. Further, the intensity characteristics of pixels in Doppler imaging provide grayscale image information useful for characterizing the received medical imaging data. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches determining a quantity of grayscale pixels in the received medical video data for determining the type/characteristics of the received video data.].
Regarding Claim 13, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 6, and Shelton further discloses wherein determining the type of video data received from the camera of the medical video source comprises determining an amount of movement in the video data [paras.0210-0213: Discloses analyzing video content and tracking objects of interest through successive video frames, including adjusting an overlay region as the surgical device or laparoscopic scope moves and updating the overlay when the location of the surgical instrument changes significantly. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches determining movement in the received video data].
Regarding Claim 14, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 1, and Shelton further discloses wherein the first portion of the video data is based on a pre-defined region of interest in the received video data [paras.0210-0213: Discloses identifying and extracting a portion of a surgical video stream that includes an area/region of interest and using the extracted portion as overlay content. Thus, the first portion of the video data is based on a pre-defined region of interest in the received video data.].
Regarding Claim 15, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 14, and Shelton further discloses wherein the method comprises determining a bandwidth of the first link of the communications channel, and wherein a size of the pre-defined region of interest is based on the determined bandwidth of the first link of the communications channel [paras.0201-0203, 0231-0235: Discloses determining communication performance/capabilities of the communication pathway, including bandwidth/throughput, and allocating and controlling the communication pathway based thereon to increase reliability and reduce latency. Shelton further discloses determining and dynamically adjusting the size of an overlay region/region of interest of the video stream. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches determining a bandwidth of the communication link and adjusting the size of the pre-defined region of interest based on the determined bandwidth of the communication link.].
Regarding Claim 16, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 14, and Shelton further discloses wherein the second portion of the video data is based on pre-defined region of non-interest in the received video data [paras.0210-0213: Discloses extracting a selected portion of a surgical video stream containing an area/region of interest while the underlying/remaining surgical video stream is retained for display and composite-video generation. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches the remaining portion of the received video data corresponds to a region of non-interest relative to the selected region of interest.].
Regarding Claim 17, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 14, and Shelton further discloses wherein the second portion of the video data comprises all of the video data received from the medical video source [paras.0210-0213: Discloses obtaining a surgical video stream as the primary video feed and overlaying a selected portion of another video feed onto the primary surgical video stream. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second portion comprises the complete underlying video data received from the medical video source.].
Regarding Claim 18, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 17, and Shelton further discloses wherein the method comprises overlaying the first portion of the video data over the second portion of the video data at a display configured to display the received video data [paras.0210-0213: Discloses generating a composite surgical video stream by overlaying an extracted portion of a secondary surgical video stream onto a primary surgical video stream for display, including picture-in-picture techniques. Thus, Shelton teaches overlaying the first portion of the video data over the second portion of the video data at a display configured to display the received video data.].
Regarding Claim 19, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 1, and Shelton further discloses wherein the method comprises determining if the first link of the communications channel is operating []; and
if the first link is determined to not be operating:
transmitting the received video data on the second link of the communications channel according to the third pre-defined specification [paras.0199, 0203-0206: Discloses determining whether an issue is associated with a communication pathway/video stream and, upon detecting an issue with the primary video/pathway, displaying another video stream transmitted via another communication pathway. Shelton further discloses that, when a pathway transmitting one portion of the video stream has an issue, the successfully transmitted video-stream portion is displayed. Thus, Shelton teaches determining whether the first link is operating and when the first link is not operating, transmitting/displaying the received video data using the second link.].
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Mueck for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1. Claim 20 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of claim 1. Shelton further discloses a memory (FIG.6, element 20223; FIG.14, element 10008; para.0090); one or more processors (FIG.3, element 20057; FIG.5, element 20093; FIG.6, element 20222; paras.0087, 0090-0091); and wherein the memory stores one or more programs that when executed by the one or more processors (para.0157), cause the one or more processors (para.0157) to perform the corresponding functions recited in Claim 20. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Shelton and Mueck render Claim 20 obvious for the reasons discussed with respect to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 28, Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Mueck for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 2. Claim 28 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of Claim 2, with the one or more processors configured to perform functions corresponding to the method steps recited in Claim 2. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Shelton and Mueck render Claim 28 obvious for the reasons discussed above with respect to Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 30, Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Mueck for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 6. Claim 30 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of Claim 6, with the one or more processors configured to perform functions corresponding to the method steps recited in Claim 6. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Shelton and Mueck render Claim 30 obvious for the reasons discussed above with respect to Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 31, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the system of claim 30, and Shelton further discloses wherein if the determined type of video data received from the camera of the medical video source is endoscopic camera video data, then the third pre-defined specification comprises downscaling the received video data from the medical video source [FIG.5, paras.0231-0235: Discloses endoscopic imaging/video data and processing video content for display, including scaling down video/overlay content based on characteristics of the video frame. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches downscaling received endoscopic video data], applying a light compression process to the received video data [paras.0201-0203, 0205-0210: Discloses surgical/endoscopic video streams and processing the video streams using processing modules, including processing directed to enhancing the surgical video stream and improving processing speed and reducing latency. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches applying a light compression process to received endoscopic video data to facilitate processing and transmission of the video stream.], or transmitting a pre-defined region of interest (ROI) of the received video data [paras.0210-0213, 0231-0235: Discloses analyzing surgical/endoscopic video streams to identify, extract, and/or track portions or objects of interest within the video, and generating/processing video frames based on identified regions of interest. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches identifying and transmitting a pre-defined region of interest of the received endoscopic video data.].
Regarding Claim 32, Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Mueck for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 10. Claim 32 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of Claim 10, with the one or more processors configured to perform functions corresponding to the method steps recited in Claim 10. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Shelton and Mueck render Claim 32 obvious for the reasons discussed above with respect to Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 33, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the system of claim 30, and Shelton further discloses wherein determining the type of video data received from the camera of the medical video source comprises receiving identification data pertaining to the medical video source configured to identify the type of video data received from the medical video source [paras.0225-0228: Discloses identifying a surgical instrument/source using fiducial markers, including an electronic-readable code, and retrieving information associated with the identified surgical instrument, including the model and spatial properties thereof; and paras.0207-0209: Discloses different source video streams and processing modules based on characteristics of the imaging/video data. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches receiving identification data pertaining to the medical video source for identifying the type/characteristics of video data received from the medical video source.], determining a quantity of grayscale pixels in the received video data [paras.0161, 0182: Discloses analyzing pixel data of medical imaging/video data, including multiple pixel data associated with a Doppler analysis image. The analysis of the pixels provides a determination of the amount/quantity of pixels exhibiting particular image characteristics. Further, the intensity characteristics of pixels in Doppler imaging provide grayscale image information useful for characterizing the received medical imaging data. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches determining a quantity of grayscale pixels in the received medical video data for determining the type/characteristics of the received video data.], or determining an amount of movement in the video data [paras.0210-0213: Discloses analyzing video content and tracking objects of interest through successive video frames, including adjusting an overlay region as the surgical device or laparoscopic scope moves and updating the overlay when the location of the surgical instrument changes significantly. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Shelton teaches determining movement in the received video data].
Regarding Claim 34, Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Mueck for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 19. Claim 34 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of Claim 19, with the one or more processors configured to perform functions corresponding to the method steps recited in Claim 19. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Shelton and Mueck render Claim 34 obvious for the reasons discussed above with respect to Claim 19.
Claims 5-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al., Pub No US 2023/0025827 (hereafter Shelton) in view of Mueck et al., Pub No US 2014/0254498 (hereafter Mueck) and further in view of SONG et al., Pub No US 2018/0168554 (hereafter SONG).
Regarding Claim 5, the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teaching does not explicitly disclose wherein the video data includes a plurality of lines, wherein the first pre-defined specification comprises transmitting a first portion of the plurality of lines on the first link of the communications channel and the second pre-defined specification comprises transmitting a second portion of the plurality of lines on the second link of the communications channel; and wherein each line of the plurality of lines in the video data is represented either by the first portion of the plurality of lines or the second portion of the plurality of lines. However, in analogous art, SONG discloses medical image data comprising a plurality of lines (scanlines) and selectively controlling portions of the plurality of lines by varying the number of scanlines and applying different data-reduction rates to different portions of the image [paras.0068-0074, 0138-0143, 0147-0150]. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, SONG teaches these limitations because the scanlines constitute the claimed plurality of lines, and SONG segments the image into respective regions and differentially reduces the scanline data associated with those regions, thereby providing respective portions of the plurality of lines [para.0147-0150]. SONG further teaches selectively reducing or omitting data associated with regions while retaining data associated with other regions [paras.0154-0156]. Shelton teaches transmitting respective predetermined portions of video data over respective first and second communication pathways, including assigning every other picture frame to a first pathway and the remaining picture frames to a second pathway [paras.0198-0199], while Mueck teaches predefined link configurations employing a plurality of communication links, including a configuration in which video data is transmitted using two simultaneous links [paras.0110-0117, 0123-0126, Table 3]. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the combined teachings provide a first portion of the plurality of lines transmitted on the first link according to a first predefined specification and a second portion transmitted on the second link according to a second predefined specification, with the plurality of lines allocated between the respective portions. 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 the combined teaching of Shelton and Mueck with the selective scan-line-based image-data processing, as taught by SONG, thereby providing the predictable result of reducing the amount of image data carried by the respective communication link while maintaining desired medical image information and image quality [SONG, paras.0068-0074, 0138-0143, 0147-0150, 0154-0156].
Regarding Claim 29, Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Mueck for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 5. Claim 29 recites, in system form, limitations corresponding to those of Claim 5, with the one or more processors configured to perform functions corresponding to the method steps recited in Claim 5. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Shelton and Mueck render Claim 29 obvious for the reasons discussed above with respect to Claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Namboodiri et al., (US 2014/0019630) – Discloses a media transfer management module that includes a processing unit 201, a medical analyzer 203, a channel analyzer 205, a modality of interest (MOI) identification module 207, an inter-modality resolution modification module 209, a region of interest (ROI) identification module 211, an intra-modality resolution modification module 213 and a user interface engine 215 [para.0072]. Further discloses an intra-modality resolution modification module 213 modifies at least one media stream based on the channel limitation determined by the channel analyzer 205. For example, assume the channel analyzer 205 determined that the channel is a 3G connection with a limited bandwidth of X bits per second (bps), in one embodiment, the intra-modality resolution modification module 213 modifies a plurality of media streams using the 3G channel by lowering the resolution outside one or more regions of interest so that the plurality of media streams use a total bandwidth Y [para.0126].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL OCAK whose telephone number is (571) 272-2774. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/ADIL OCAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights