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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: a claim cannot be dependent upon itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards nonstatutory subject matter.
A machine must comprise at least one structural limitation. The claim(s) fail(s) to include at least one structural element/limitation. Therefore the claimed subject matter as whole fails to fall within the definition of a patentable eligible category of subject matter and fails to meet the requirements of 35 USC § 101. Applicant’s specification refers to the claimed elements as embodied entirely in software (see applicant’s specification ¶ 53).
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 1-5, 7-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,289,369. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent contains all the elements of the instant application and/or the equivalents.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the plurality of media flows entering the media production facility". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4, 7-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20100122303 to Maloney.
Regarding claim 1, Maloney teaches a system comprising:
a media production facility in communication with a public cloud network facility via a common carrier (¶ 52-56; fig. 1, 3, 7);
an orchestration layer configured to run in the media production facility and the public cloud network facility over the common carrier (¶ 52-60, fig. 1, 3, 7);
a registration database including a plurality of media flows registered therein, a first location of a first media flow of the plurality of media flows and a second location of a second media flow of the plurality of media flows, the registration database configured to uniquely identify each of the of the plurality of media flows and store respective metadata related to each of the of the plurality of media flows (¶ 53-60, registered flows and location information identifying flows); and
a management system in communication with the registration database and configured to access, via the orchestration layer, the first media flow from the first location identified in the registration database and the second media flow from the second location identified in the registration database (¶ 53-60, accessing flows).
Regarding claim 2,
Maloney teaches:
wherein the respective metadata include: (i) a respective location of each of the plurality of media flows across a media production facility and a public cloud network facility, (ii) whether each of the plurality of media flows is currently being used in a broadcast, and (iii) what other media flows are stored with or are being used with each of the plurality of media flows (¶ 53-54).
Regarding claim 3,
Maloney teaches:
wherein the management system is further configured to generate media by combining the first media flow with the second media flow to provide a combined media flow in real time with respect to identifying the first location of the first media flow and the second location of the second media flow (¶ 54-56, combined flow).
Regarding claim 4,
Maloney teaches:
wherein the management system is further configured to register the combined media flow in the registration database by uniquely identifying the combined media flow in the registration database and storing metadata related to the combined media flow in the registration database (¶ 54-60, information regarding content flows).
Regarding claim 7,
Maloney teaches:
wherein the plurality of media flows include: video segments; audio segments; graphics; content triggers; or usage metadata describing how the plurality of media flows have been used or broadcast (¶ 54-56).
Regarding claim 8,
Maloney teaches:
wherein the management system is further configured to, in response to identifying that the first location of the first media flow is located in the public cloud network facility: retrieve, to the media production facility, the first media flow from the public cloud network facility as a unicast flow; and migrate, within the media production facility, the unicast flow to a multicast flow for use in generating the media (¶ 45, 50, 58, migration from unicast to multicast).
Regarding claim 10,
Maloney teaches:
wherein the metadata further comprises content metadata describing contents of the first media flow or the second media flow (¶ 54).
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, 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.
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.
Claim 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney in view of US 20150117397 to Ofir.
Regarding claim 5,
Maloney teaches:
wherein the management system is further configured to compress the plurality of media flows exiting the media production facility (¶ 61-62, compression; ¶ 44, 75).
Maloney fails to teach decompress the plurality of media flows entering the media production facility. However, Ofir teaches decompression of a plurality of media flows entering a facility (¶ 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Ofir. The motivation to do so is that the compression and decompression of media flows advantageously reduced overhead and is a standard in the art (Ofir ¶ 6).
Regarding claim 9,
Maloney teaches: wherein the multicast flow is compressed (¶ 61-62, compression). Maloney fails to teach but Ofir teaches a management system is further configured to decompress the multicast flow (¶ 6). Motivation to include Ofir is the same as presented above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney in view of US 11,829,583 to Hawa.
Regarding claim 6,
Maloney fails to teach: wherein the management system is further configured to tally content in the registration database to indicate content that is read-only during broadcast of the content. However, Hawa discloses marking content as read-only (col. 3:1-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Hawa. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Hawa would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating control of shared of content (Hawa, col. 1:25-55, col. 2:1-12, col. 3:1-50).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. 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.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
