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 1-24 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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 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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.131(c). 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. 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 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.
As per claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 10-12, they are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, and 8-9 of U.S. Patent 12,399,476.
The present application is a continuation of U.S. Patent 12,399,476, having the same inventive entity, assignee, and with identical disclosures. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1-3, 6, and 8-9 of U.S. Patent 12,399,476 contain, and have obvious substantially similar limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-12 of the Instant Application (See MPEP 804). A table has been constructed below to illustrate this:
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 12,399,476
1. A general purpose interface (GPI) bridging system comprising:
a computing device comprising general purpose input pins, one or more processors, and one or more memories storing program instructions, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the computing device to:
detect electric contact closures from broadcast equipment configured to output electric contact-closure GPI signals via copper wire connections at the general purpose input pins;
execute a callback function when the electric contact closures are detected; and
convert the detected electric contact closures to executable scripts in a scripting language for transmission to cloud-based services for remote device control, wherein the computing device is interposed between the broadcast equipment and the cloud-based services.
2. The GPI bridging system of claim 1, wherein the scripting language executable scripts are configured to control broadcasting equipment not directly connected to the copper wire connections.
3. The GPI bridging system of claim 1, wherein the broadcast equipment comprises a video switcher and the cloud-based services comprise graphics engines accessible via internet protocols.
4. The GPI bridging system of claim 1, wherein the callback function is programmed to execute an assigned command specified by a value of the detected electric contact closure.
6. The GPI bridging system of claim 1, wherein the executable scripts comprise python scripts compatible with remote broadcasting equipment.
8. The GPI bridging system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions further configure the computing device to optimize latency for transmission to support live broadcast applications where trigger speed is imperative.
10. The GPI bridging system of claim 1, wherein the executable scripts include routing data that specifies where the scripts are to be transmitted when utilizing smart routing.
11. The GPI bridging system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions further configure the computing device to utilize smart routing that optimizes latency for transmission and delivery of the executable scripts to the cloud-based services.
12. The GPI bridging system of claim 1, wherein the computing device comprises a single board computer compatible with python script execution.
1. A general purpose interface (GPI) device comprising:
a communication port configured to receive a general purpose signal from a first device and transmit a command to a second device;
a general purpose interface including general purpose input pins for detecting general purpose signals;
one or more processors including a single board computer compatible with the command; and
a memory comprising program instructions, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the GPI device to:
detect, at the general purpose interface, the general purpose signal transmitted by the first device;
based on the detection:
trigger a callback function to transmit the command to the second device via the communication port, wherein the command comprises a script in a language compatible with the second device, and wherein the second device executes the command.
trigger the GPI device to convert the general purpose signal to the command assigned to the general purpose signal; and
3. The GPI device of claim 1, wherein the command includes a signal for the second device to open or close a circuit or switch, power on, power off, trigger an actuator, modify power supply to control a motor, or a combination thereof.
9. The GPI device of claim 1, wherein the first device is a broadcast switcher, wherein the second device is a graphics engine, and wherein the command instructs the graphics engine to generate a graphic.
1. A general purpose interface (GPI) device comprising: detect, at the general purpose interface, the general purpose signal transmitted by the first device;
based on the detection:
trigger the GPI device to convert the general purpose signal to the command assigned to the general purpose signal; and
trigger a callback function to transmit the command to the second device via the communication port, wherein the command comprises a script in a language compatible with the second device, and wherein the second device executes the command.
2. The GPI device of claim 1, wherein the script is python script.
8. The GPI device of claim 6, wherein the smart routing comprises optimizing latency for near instantaneous transmission and delivery of the command to the second device when the detection triggers the callback function to transmit the command to the second device.
6. The GPI device of claim 5, wherein the GPI device is further configured to utilize smart routing to transmit the general purpose signal and/or the command.
8. The GPI device of claim 6, wherein the smart routing comprises optimizing latency for near instantaneous transmission and delivery of the command to the second device when the detection triggers the callback function to transmit the command to the second device.
1. A general purpose interface (GPI) device comprising: one or more processors including a single board computer compatible with the command;
As per claims 13-16, 18, 20, and 22-24, they are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-13, 16, and 18-19 of U.S. Patent 12,399,476.
A table has been omitted for the sake of brevity because it would be substantially similar to the table above.
As per claims 5, 7, 9, 17, 19, and 21, they are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 16, and 18-19 of U.S. Patent 12,399,476 in view of the appropriately cited prior art references below.
As per claims 5, 7, 9, 17, 19, and 21, the claims of U.S. Patent 12,399,476 do not explicitly teach the limitations contained in claims 5, 7, 9, 17, 19, and 21 of the instant application. However, the mappings/portions of the aforementioned cited prior art references as well as the corresponding motivation to combine said cited prior references with the aforementioned claims of U.S. Patent 12,399,476 have been omitted for the sake of brevity because they would be substantially similar to those appearing in the prior art rejection below.
Claims 1-12 of the Instant Application are a system embodiment of the device embodiment of claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent 12,399,476. Therefore, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the claimed device of U.S. Patent 12,399,476 to perform the functions of the system of the instant claims. The difference in the statutory class of invention between the claims of the instant application and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,399,476 are merely obvious variants of one another where the statutory class of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,399,476 could readily be practiced or embodied as the statutory class of the claims of the instant application.
Claims 13-24 of the Instant Application are an apparatus embodiment of the method embodiment of claims 11-20 of U.S. Patent 12,399,476. Therefore, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the claimed method of U.S. Patent 12,399,476 to perform the functions of the apparatus of the instant claims. The difference in the statutory class of invention between the claims of the instant application and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,399,476 are merely obvious variants of one another where the statutory class of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,399,476 could readily be practiced or embodied as the statutory class of the claims of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. More specifically, the language in the independent claims “wherein the computing device is interposed between the broadcast equipment and the cloud-based services” introduces new matter into the disclosure which is not supported by the original disclosure. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. More specifically, the limitation “wherein the computing device is interposed between the broadcast equipment and the cloud-based services” of the independent claims is unclear, vague, and indefinite because it is not possible to determine how the computing device is ”interposed between” the broadcast equipment and the cloud-based services. If none of the computing device, broadcast equipment, and cloud-based services are stationary then how can a particular location of any of the entities be determined to be “interposed between”? Even if they were all stationary then how can one determine the location of any of the entities to be “interposed between”? In other words, how can the location of “cloud”-based services be determined? For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets that the computing device, broadcast equipment, and cloud-based services can be located anywhere. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 13-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (2017/0116146) (as previously cited) in view of
Kuo-Wen (US 2003/0046709) (as previously cited) in view of
Albisu (US 2015/0058447) (as previously cited) in view of
McGinley et al. (US 2011/0260555) (hereinafter McGinley).
As per claim 1, Liu teaches the invention primarily as claimed including a general purpose interface (GPI) bridging system ([0047] USB pin i.e., general purpose interface is in bridge connection with external equipment) comprising:
a computing device comprising general purpose input pins ([0033] a plurality of pins), one or more processors, and one or more memories storing program instructions ([0101] processor and memory), wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the computing device to:
detect electric contact closures at the general purpose input pins ([0044] and [0046] detect low electrical level of USB pin after receiving interrupt signal);
execute a callback function when the electric contact closures are detected ([0079]-[0080] send a notification indicating that the electrical level of the pin is the low electrical level through executing a pre-registered callback function when it is detected that the electrical level of the pin is the low electrical level).
Liu does not explicitly teach:
broadcast equipment configured to output electric contact-closure GPI signals and copper wire connections;
convert the detected electric contact closures to executable scripts in a scripting language for transmission to cloud-based services for remote device control,
wherein the computing device is interposed between the broadcast equipment and the cloud-based services.
However, Kuo-Wen teaches:
broadcast equipment ([0016] digital broadcast system);
convert the detected electric contact closures to executable scripts ([0022] convert the received channel request signal i.e., the signal can be carried over/through an electric contact closure into a corresponding script representing a request to link to the corresponding internet service provider).
Kuo-Wen and Liu are both concerned with computer network communication and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Liu in view of Kuo-Wen because it would provide a digital broadcast system and method for enabling a viewer linkage to internet service providers via a channel remote controller. Thus, viewers can easily and conveniently link to internet service providers through digital TV or TV with STB at home in a way similar to controlling traditional TVs, thus providing an easy way for those users not skilled at PC to operate digital TV to connect to Internet resources.
Liu in view of Kuo-Wen do not explicitly teach:
output electric contact-closure GPI signals and copper wire connections; and
executable scripts in a scripting language for transmission to cloud-based services for remote device control,
wherein the computing device is interposed between the broadcast equipment and the cloud-based services.
However, Albisu teaches:
copper wire connections ([0053] copper twisted pairs); and
executable scripts in a scripting language ([0030]-[0031] script programming language such as Perl, PHP, or Shell) for transmission to cloud-based services for remote device control ([0027]-[0028] script retrieved by mobile command server can include function calls for completing a command at a remote device/service associated with a cloud-based service) ,
wherein the computing device is interposed between the broadcast equipment and the cloud-based services ([0082] location receiver can utilize location technology such as a global positioning system (GPS) receiver capable of assisted GPS for identifying a location of the communication device based on signals generated by a constellation of GPS satellites, which can be used for facilitating location services such as navigation. The motion sensor can utilize motion sensing technology such as an accelerometer, a gyroscope, or other suitable motion sensing technology to detect motion of the communication device in three-dimensional space).
Albisu and Liu are both concerned with computer network communication and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu because it would provide for a mobile command server providing voice or audio command services to a mobile communication device. Simple voice commands can be captured at the mobile communication device for the purpose of controlling devices and/or services at a subscriber's premises and/or accessible via the cloud or Internet. A script library can associate scripts to the simple phrases, which can easily be spoken users into a mobile communication device and converted to a searchable text by the mobile command server.
Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu do not explicitly teach output electric contact-closure GPI signals.
However, McGinley teaches output electric contact-closure GPI signals ([0027] recognize the electrical signal and effect connection of the relay contacts to close the switch circuitry in response to receipt of the electrical signal and [0029] USB plug and USB port).
McGinley and Liu are both concerned with data communication / signal transfer and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley because it would provide for power saving cable assemblies, in particular, cable assemblies for use with electrical devices having on-board rechargeable batteries and, more particularly, to cable assemblies for electrical devices capable of sending an electrical signal indicating the electrical device has been turned on so the cable assembly connects power to the electrical device and shifts from a disconnect state in which power drain commonly known as "phantom" load is substantially reduced or eliminated.
As per claim 2, Albisu teaches wherein the scripting language executable scripts are configured to control broadcasting equipment not directly connected to the copper wire connections ([0068] connected devices can operate as wireless devices i.e., not directly connected to wired connections).
As per claim 3, the combination of references above teaches wherein the broadcast equipment comprises a video switcher (Liu [0003] high definition multimedia interface, [0033] play video in HDMI format, [0069] USB switch) and the cloud-based services (Albisu [0032] cloud-based services) comprise graphics engines accessible via internet protocols (Albisu [0092]-[0093] video communication and graphics processing unit in distributed environments).
As per claim 4, Liu further teaches wherein the callback function is programmed to execute an assigned command specified by a value of the detected electric contact closure ([0066] execute the operation of transmitting a signal if it is detected that the pin is at a high electrical level and [0096] execute a pre-registered callback function when it is detected that the electrical level of the pin is the low electrical level).
As per claim 7, Albisu teaches wherein the cloud-based services comprise cloud computing instances accessible via internet protocols ([0027] cloud-based service can be accessed via the Internet network).
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley in view of Beoughter et al. (US 2007/0106761) (hereinafter Beoughter as previously cited).
As per claim 5, Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley do not explicitly teach wherein the program instructions further configure the computing device to pre-compile scripts during system initialization to eliminate compilation delay during real-time broadcast operations.
However, Beoughter teaches wherein the program instructions further configure the computing device to pre-compile scripts during system initialization to eliminate compilation delay during real-time broadcast operations ([0062] pre-compile scripts to enhance execution speed).
Beoughter and Liu are both concerned with computer network communication and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley in view of Beoughter because it would provide a way for pre-compiling scripts to enhance execution speed by for example triggering a callback to a client device if certain services/actions are needed.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley in view of Oztaskent et al. (US 2014/0317662) (hereinafter Oztaskent as previously cited).
As per claim 6, Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley do not explicitly teach wherein the executable scripts comprise python scripts compatible with remote broadcasting equipment.
However, Oztaskent teaches wherein the executable scripts comprise python scripts compatible with remote broadcasting equipment ([0017] remote control commands and corresponding Python scripting language to send/transmit commands to remote device).
Oztaskent and Liu are both concerned with computer network communication and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley in view of Oztaskent because it would provide for a composite channel which incorporates programming from both broadcast media channels and streaming media channels. In selecting such a composite channel, a user can view media content (whether from broadcast or streaming sources) that is directed to a particular interest, characteristic, etc., without the need to transition between channels.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley in view of Dharmaji (US 2019/0200054) (as previously cited).
As per claim 8, Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley do not explicitly teach wherein the program instructions further configure the computing device to optimize latency for transmission to support live broadcast applications where trigger speed is imperative.
However, Dharmaji teaches wherein the program instructions further configure the computing device to optimize latency for transmission to support live broadcast applications where trigger speed is imperative ([0010] improve latency of live broadcasts by using raw sockets to optimize/reduce latency).
Dharmaji and Liu are both concerned with computer network communication and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley in view of Dharmaji because it would provide a way to enable a more natural interactions utilizing a platform with reduced latency of communication such as not performing error checks on the live streamed data, not reordering packets while they are being relayed between devices, etc. A TCP tunnel that utilizes raw sockets is used to enable customized techniques for reducing communication latency.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley in view of Aftab et al. (US 2021/0051551) (hereinafter Aftab as previously cited).
As per claim 9, Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley do not explicitly teach wherein the computing device is positioned as a last step in a hardware control chain between the broadcast equipment and cloud-based broadcasting tools.
However, Aftab teaches wherein the computing device is positioned as a last step in a hardware control chain between the broadcast equipment and cloud-based broadcasting tools ([0028]-[0029] edge cloud includes servers and be in network in close proximity to a last mile network).
Aftab and Liu are both concerned with computer network communication and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley in view of Aftab because it would provide a way of determining that a server is available in an edge cloud. The server may be converted from a first configuration (e.g., network router) to another device type. The use of such a system may help reduce the likelihood of performance issues and reduce the need to increase the number of devices in the network reducing network state maintained in the network based on user equipment types to reduce network cost and allow massive scale; shortening cycle time and improving network upgradability; flexibility in creating end-to-end services based on types of user equipment and applications, thus improving customer experience; or improving user equipment power efficiency and battery life through enhanced wireless management.
As per claim 21, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 10-11 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley in view of L’Heureux et al. (US 2014/0259147) (hereinafter L’Heureux as previously cited).
As per claim 10, Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley do not explicitly teach wherein the executable scripts include routing data that specifies where the scripts are to be transmitted when utilizing smart routing.
However, L’Heureux teaches wherein the executable scripts include routing data that specifies where the scripts are to be transmitted when utilizing smart routing ([0240] smart router can display a user interface having a script window in response to a request/response stream).
L’Heureux and Liu are both concerned with computer network communication and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley in view of L’Heureux because it would provide for a smart router device which functions as a transport level proxy and application level proxy to host both authenticated user and device sessions with stored session state and access control to resources for enhanced performance and ease of use. The device is able to function as a protocol proxy for improved performance and security. The device may be configured to implement a captive portal login mechanism, and may programmatically force unsecure LAN-side client requests to secure WAN-side connections. The device may execute an API for remote applications to utilize. The router device may pre-fetch content for client devices, and may communicate with other servers and peer routers to ascertain congestion on the WAN, and perform intelligent routing of WAN traffic based on the detected congestion to enhance privacy.
As per claim 11, Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley do not explicitly teach wherein the program instructions further configure the computing device to utilize smart routing that optimizes latency for transmission and delivery of the executable scripts to the cloud-based services.
However, L’Heureux teaches wherein the program instructions further configure the computing device to utilize smart routing that optimizes latency for transmission and delivery of the executable scripts to the cloud-based services ([0196] an alternative path may be selected by the smart router to reduce network latency experienced by clients).
L’Heureux and Liu are both concerned with computer network communication and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley in view of L’Heureux because it would provide for a smart router device which functions as a transport level proxy and application level proxy to host both authenticated user and device sessions with stored session state and access control to resources for enhanced performance and ease of use. The device is able to function as a protocol proxy for improved performance and security. The device may be configured to implement a captive portal login mechanism, and may programmatically force unsecure LAN-side client requests to secure WAN-side connections. The device may execute an API for remote applications to utilize. The router device may pre-fetch content for client devices, and may communicate with other servers and peer routers to ascertain congestion on the WAN, and perform intelligent routing of WAN traffic based on the detected congestion to enhance privacy.
As per claim 22, it has similar limitations as claim 10 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 23, it has similar limitations as claim 11 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley in view of Bernardi (US 2023/0216947) (as previously cited).
As per claim 12, Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley do not explicitly teach wherein the computing device comprises a single board computer compatible with python script execution.
However, Bernardi teaches wherein the computing device comprises a single board computer compatible with python script execution ([0619] single-board computer using Python).
Bernardi and Liu are both concerned with computer network communication and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Liu in view of Kuo-Wen in view of Albisu in view of McGinley in view of Bernardi because it would provide a way of extending multiparty conferencing including simulcast and multicast to enable the deployment of streamed video in efficient and scalable hub and spoke technologies with low latency and high quality videos. Every participant (peer) sends their media stream to a centralized server and receives streams for all other participants which does not need to decode and re-encode received streams, but simply acts as a forwarder of streams between call participants. The main advantage is the ability to work with asymmetric bandwidth or (higher downlink bandwidth than uplink bandwidth), which makes it suitable for mobile communications.
As per claim 24, it has similar limitations as claim 12 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 6, Applicant argues that a terminal disclaimer has or will soon be filed with respect to U.S. Patent 12,399,476. The examiner respectfully traverses and notes that the terminal disclaimer has not been filed. A complete response to a non-statutory double patenting (NDP) rejection is either a reply by Applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 804 and 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the non-statutory double patenting rejection is provisional. As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 7-8 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the cited prior art does not disclose the claims as instantly amended. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the “output electric contact-closure GPI signals” amendment, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Regarding the “wherein the computing device is interposed between the broadcast equipment and the cloud-based services” amendment, Applicant is reminded of In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“expert’s opinion on the ultimate legal conclusion must be supported by something more than a conclusory statement”). It appears that Applicant is merely making a conclusory statement that the prior art references do not teach the aforementioned limitation. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection (see MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art). The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant’s arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Shen et al. (US 2006/0117222) disclose a callback test script.
Rettig et al. (US 2004/0172601) disclose converting text data into relevant function calls associated with scripts.
Popescu et al. (US 2018/0270161) disclose real-time traffic steering using real-time monitoring data.
Oh (US 2006/0046788) disclose device detection in a mobile communication terminal.
Khan et al. (US 2024/0291729) disclose an intelligent multi-carrier network edge application deployment.
Johnson et al. (US 2018/0262388) disclose a remote device deployment.
Divjak (US 5,444,644) disclose an auto-configured instrumentation interface.
Chien (US 2021/0286692) disclose an optimal boot path for a network device.
Atur et al. (US 2022/0109630) disclose a workflow including function calls.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached on 571-272-4215. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 March 16, 2026