DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1, 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dao et al. (US20200045753, hereinafter Dao).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, Dao discloses a communication method, comprising:
sending, to a first streaming media sink, a first message comprising a first streaming media application identifier field and a first multicast group identifier field (see Dao, at least at [0021]-[0022], [0068]-[0073], [0077], [0081], Figs. 1-4, and other related text), wherein the first streaming media application identifier field indicates a first streaming media application (see Dao, at least at [0073], and other related text), wherein the first multicast group identifier field indicates a first multicast group of the first streaming media application (see Dao, at least at [0006]-[0007], [0021], [0068]-[0073], and other related text), and wherein the first streaming media sink belongs to the first multicast group (see Dao, at least at [0021]-[0022], [0068]-[0073], [0077], [0081], and other related text); and
sending to a second streaming media sink, a second message comprises comprising a second streaming media application identifier field and a second multicast group identifier field (i.e., the GC session includes multiple sessions and therefore multiple messages, see Dao, at least at [0021]-[0022], [0068]-[0073], [0077], [0081], and other related text), wherein the second streaming media application identifier field indicates the first streaming media application (i.e., different groups receive the same data, see Dao, at least at [0021]-[0022], [0035], [0068]-[0073], [0077], [0081], and other related text), wherein the second multicast group identifier field indicates a second multicast group of the first streaming media application (see Dao, at least at [0006]-[0007], [0021], [0068]-[0073], and other related text), and wherein the second streaming media sink belongs to the second multicast group (see Dao, at least at [0021]-[0022], [0068]-[0073], [0077], [0081], and other related text).
Regarding claim 7, Dao discloses wherein the first message further comprises at least one of: a response result field indicating that a streaming media source accepts a request; a message type field indicating that the first message is a group member join response message; a first multicast group quantity field indicating a quantity of multicast groups of the first streaming media application; or a member identity field indicating the first streaming media sink (see Dao, at least at [0067]-[0068], and other related text).
Claims 2, 4-6, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Talebi Fard et al. (US20200228936, hereinafter Talebi Fard).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Dao does not specifically disclose receiving, from the first streaming media sink, a third message comprising a first attribute parameter field, wherein the first attribute parameter field indicates at least one of the following attributes of the first streaming media sink: a codec quantity; an encoder identifier; a resolution, a resolution; a frame rate, a codec; a codec profile; a codec a codec level; a codec a codec tier; a media a media data encapsulation format; a media a media data transmission protocol; a protocol a protocol stack type; a communication a communication mode, wherein the communication mode is multicast or unicast; or a spatial location; a media data transmission protocol; a protocol stack type; or a communication mode, wherein the communication mode is multicast or unicast.
In an analogous art relating to a system for managing communications, Talebi Fard discloses receiving, from a first streaming media sink, a message comprising a first attribute parameter field, wherein the first attribute parameter field indicates at least a protocol stack type (see Talebi Fard, at least at [0041], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Dao to include the limitations as taught by Talebi Fard for more efficiently managing communications.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Dao in view of Talebi Fard discloses wherein the message further comprises at least one of: a first attribute field indicating content indicated by the first attribute parameter field; a message type field indicating that the third message is a group member join request message or a group member query acknowledgment message; or a member identity field indicating the first streaming media sink (see Talebi Fard, at least at [0207]-[0210], and other related text).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 18-19, Dao in view of Talebi Fard discloses wherein before receiving the third message, the method further comprises sending, to the first streaming media sink, a fourth message that queries for a member in at least one multicast group of at least one streaming media application, wherein the at least one streaming media application comprises the first streaming media application, and wherein the at least one multicast group comprises the first multicast group (see Talebi Fard, at least at [0207]-[0210], and other related text).
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao (previously cited) in view of Talebi Fard (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mao et al. (US11553018, hereinafter Mao).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Dao in view of Talebi Fard does not specifically disclose grouping, based on the first attribute parameter field, the first streaming media sink into the first multicast group.
In an analogous art relating to a system for group communications, Mao discloses grouping, based on the first attribute parameter field, the first streaming media sink into the first multicast group (i.e., profiles, see Mao, at least at col 13, lines 1-31, col 15, line 40 – col 16, line 3, and other related text)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Dao in view of Talebi Fard to include the limitations as taught by Mao for more efficiently managing communications.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mao (previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Dai does not specifically disclose sending, to a first member in the first multicast group, a first media stream; and
sending, to a second member in the second multicast group, a second media stream, wherein the first media stream is different from the second media stream in at least one of the following attributes:
a codec type; a resolution; a frame rate; a codec profile; a codec level; a codec tier; a media data encapsulation format; a media data transmission protocol; a protocol stack type; or a communication mode, wherein the communication mode is multicast or unicast.
In an analogous art relating to a system for group communications, Mao discloses sending, to a first member in the first multicast group, a first media stream (see Mao, at least at col 13, lines 1-31, col 15, line 40 – col 16, line 3, and other related text); and
sending, to a second member in the second multicast group, a second media stream (see Mao, at least at col 13, lines 1-31, col 15, line 40 – col 16, line 3, and other related text), wherein the first media stream is different from the second media stream in at least one of the following attributes:
a codec type; a resolution; a frame rate; a codec profile; a codec level; a codec tier; a media data encapsulation format; a media data transmission protocol; a protocol stack type; or a communication mode, wherein the communication mode is multicast or unicast (see Mao, at least at col 13, lines 1-31, col 15, line 40 – col 16, line 3, and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Dao to include the limitations as taught by Mao for more efficiently managing communications.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao (previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Dao disclose maintaining numerous management tables and other management associations (see Dao, at least at [0213]-[0214], and other related text), but does not specifically disclose a multicast group member management table, wherein the multicast group member management table a first entry comprising a first identifier of the first streaming media application, a second identifier of the first multicast group, and a second identifier of the first streaming media sink; and
a second entry comprising the first identifier, a third identifier of the second multicast group, and a fourth identifier of the second streaming media sink. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is very well-known and common in the art to manage associations and group information as above in the form of a table for the advantage of more efficiently managing communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Dao to specifically include the limitations as claimed for the advantage of more efficiently managing communications.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US20230345310, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claims 10-11, Dao does not specifically disclose receiving, from the first streaming media sink, a group member leave request message comprising a third streaming media application identifier field indicating the first streaming media application and a third multicast group identifier field indicating the first multicast group.
In an analogous art relating to a system for managing communications, Li discloses receiving, from a first streaming media sink, a group member leave request message comprising a third streaming media application identifier field indicating a first streaming media application and a third multicast group identifier field indicating the first multicast group (see Li, at least at [0221]-[0235], [0252], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Dao to include the limitations as taught by Li for more efficiently managing communications.
Regarding claims 12-13, Dao in view of Li does not specifically disclose sending, to the first streaming media sink, a response message of the group member leave request message and comprising a response result field indicating one of: a streaming media source accepts a request; signaling is not identified; a signaling format is incorrect; the signaling format is invalid; a multicast streaming media application identifier is incorrect; the multicast streaming media application identifier is invalid; or another error. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is very well-known and common in the art to response messages as above for the advantage of more efficiently managing communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Dao in view of Li to specifically include the limitations as claimed for the advantage of more efficiently managing communications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/CHENEA DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights