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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “first client”, “second client”, “first cloud desktop”, and “second cloud desktop” in claims 10-12.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (for the “client” see [0135], [0145], Figs. 9-10, i.e., the apparatus of Fig. 9 is applied to a client and the apparatus of Fig. 9 may be implemented as an electronic device comprising a processor and memory as shown in Fig. 10).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “first cloud desktop” and “second cloud desktop” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lyons (US Pub. 2022/0353318), herein referenced as Lyons.
Regarding claim 1, Lyons discloses “A video data transmission method, applied to a client ([0004]-[0006], [0014], Figs. 1-5), wherein the method comprises:
sending, in response to establishing a communication connection with a server end, an obtaining request for obtaining a key frame to the server end, to enable the server end to encode a current to-be-transmitted video image into a first key frame ([0004]-[0006], [0065], [0069]-[0070], Figs. 1, 3-5, i.e., the video conference provider 310 receives a request from new client device 360 to join the video conference. In response, the video conference provider 310 generates an instantaneous decoder refresh (IDR) frame for each of the video streams received from the existing participants and transmits each of these IDR frames to the new client device 360);
receiving the first key frame fed back by the server end, wherein the first key frame comprises first decoding information; and decoding the first key frame based on the first decoding information, to display a decoded video image.” ([0004]-[0006], [0017], [0069]-[0070], [0080], Figs. 1, 4, i.e., the video conference provider 410 transmits these IDR frames 470 to the new client device 460. Using the IDR frames 470, the new client device 460 is able to join the video conference by decoding each of the received full IDR frames 470. Additionally, the IDR frame includes instructions that are provided to a decoder to indicate that no new frames will reference further back than the respective IDR frame).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
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 (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 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 8, 10, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons in view of Cui et al. (US Pub. 2023/0367534), herein referenced as Cui.
Regarding claim 8, Lyons discloses “A video data transmission method, applied to a first client ([0004]-[0006], [0014], Figs. 1-5), wherein the method comprises:
sending, in response to a …operation triggered by a user on the first client, an obtaining request for obtaining a key frame to a first … desktop connected to the first client, to enable the first … desktop to encode a current to-be-transmitted video image into a first key frame, wherein the video image is an image currently presented by the first … desktop ([0004]-[0006], [0042], [0046], [0054], [0065], [0069]-[0070], Figs. 1, 2-5, i.e., the video conference provider 310 receives a request from new client device 360 to join the video conference. In response, the video conference provider 310 generates an instantaneous decoder refresh (IDR) frame for each of the video streams received from the existing participants and transmits each of these IDR frames to the new client device 360. Additionally, screen sharing may be enabled by hosts managing the meeting and recording performed via cloud recording servers);
receiving the first key frame fed back by the first … desktop, wherein the first key frame comprises first decoding information; and sending the first key frame to a second client, to enable the second client to display, after decoding the first key frame based on the first decoding information, a decoded video image…” ([0004]-[0006], [0017], [0069]-[0070], [0080], Figs. 1, 4, i.e., the video conference provider 410 transmits these IDR frames 470 to the new client device 460. Using the IDR frames 470, the new client device 460 is able to join the video conference by decoding each of the received full IDR frames 470. Additionally, the IDR frame includes instructions that are provided to a decoder to indicate that no new frames will reference further back than the respective IDR frame).
Lyons discloses a video conferencing and video frame generation system, however fails to explicitly disclose sending, in response to a screen sharing operation triggered by a user on the first client, an obtaining request … to a first cloud desktop connected to the first client and wherein the second client is connected to a second cloud desktop.
Cui teaches the technique of sending, in response to a screen sharing operation triggered by a user on the first client, an obtaining request … to a first cloud desktop connected to the first client and wherein the second client is connected to a second cloud desktop ([0022], [0050], [0058], Figs. 1, 3-4i.e., client machines 102A-102N are connected to remote machines 106A-106N and establishing a screen sharing session). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of sending, in response to a screen sharing operation triggered by a user on the first client, an obtaining request … to a first cloud desktop connected to the first client and wherein the second client is connected to a second cloud desktop as taught by Cui, to improve the video conferencing system of Lyons for the predictable result of connecting users through a scalable network and establishing screen sharing connections.
Regarding claim 10, Lyons discloses “A video data transmission system ([0004]-[0006], [0014], Figs. 1-5), comprising:
…wherein the first client is configured to: send, in response to a … operation triggered by a user on the first client, an obtaining request for obtaining a key frame to the first … desktop; receive a first key frame fed back by the first … desktop, wherein the first key frame comprises first decoding information; and send the first key frame to the second client; the first … desktop is configured to encode, in response to the obtaining request, a current to-be-transmitted first video image into the first key frame and feed back the first key frame to the first client, wherein the first video image is an image currently presented by the first cloud desktop ([0004]-[0006], [0065], [0069]-[0070], Figs. 1, 3-5, i.e., the video conference provider 310 receives a request from new client device 360 to join the video conference. In response, the video conference provider 310 generates an instantaneous decoder refresh (IDR) frame for each of the video streams received from the existing participants and transmits each of these IDR frames to the new client device 360);
the second client is configured to: decode the first key frame based on the first decoding information; and display a second video image and a decoded first video image, wherein the second video image is an image currently presented by the second cloud desktop; and the second … desktop is configured to transmit video images corresponding to the second … desktop to the second client.” ([0004]-[0006], [0017], [0069]-[0070], [0080], Figs. 1, 4, i.e., the video conference provider 410 transmits these IDR frames 470 to the new client device 460. Using the IDR frames 470, the new client device 460 is able to join the video conference by decoding each of the received full IDR frames 470. Additionally, the IDR frame includes instructions that are provided to a decoder to indicate that no new frames will reference further back than the respective IDR frame).
Lyons discloses a video conferencing and video frame generation system, however fails to explicitly disclose a first cloud desktop, a second cloud desktop, a first client connected to the first cloud desktop, and a second client connected to the second cloud desktop, wherein the first client is configured to: send, in response to a screen sharing operation triggered by a user on the first client, an obtaining request … to the first cloud desktop.
Cui teaches the technique of providing a first cloud desktop, a second cloud desktop, a first client connected to the first cloud desktop, and a second client connected to the second cloud desktop ([0022], Figs. 1, 3-4, i.e., client machines 102A-102N are connected to remote machines 106A-106N), wherein the first client is configured to: send, in response to a screen sharing operation triggered by a user on the first client, an obtaining request … to the first cloud desktop ([0050], [0058], i.e., establishing a screen sharing session). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing a first cloud desktop, a second cloud desktop, a first client connected to the first cloud desktop, and a second client connected to the second cloud desktop, wherein the first client is configured to: send, in response to a screen sharing operation triggered by a user on the first client, an obtaining request … to the first cloud desktop as taught by Cui, to improve the video conferencing system of Lyons for the predictable result of connecting users through a scalable network and establishing screen sharing connections.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9, 11-12, 15-18, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Q Huerta whose telephone number is (571)270-3582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER Q HUERTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 September 14, 2026
