ARRIS Docket No.: 20069-CON2
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicant
`Serial No.
`Filed
`Title
`
`2462
`:
`Art Unit
`: Vasudevan
`Chan, Sai Ming
`:
`Examiner
`:
`14/507,329
`4590
`:
`Conf. No.
`: October 6, 2014
`: Method and Device for Receiving and Providing Programs
`
`AMENDMENT IN REPLY TO NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION OF APRIL 5 2016
`
`Please amend the above-identified application as follows:
`
`SONY - Ex.-1015
`Sony Corporation - Petitioner
`
`1
`
`SONY - Ex.-1015
`Sony Corporation - Petitioner
`
`1
`
`

`

`Applicant
`SerialNo.
`Filed
`Page
`
`: Vasudevan
`: 14/507,329
`: October 6, 2014
`: 2 of 8
`
`Amendments to the Claims:
`
`ARRIS Docket No.: 20069-CON2
`
`This listing of claims replaces all prior versions and listings of claims in the application.
`
`Listing of Claims:
`
`1.
`
`(Currently Amended)
`
`A method for conserving resources associated with packet
`
`television services comprising:
`
`receiving television content from a content provider over a packet network;
`
`providing the television content to a television monitor for display to a viewer;
`
`determining if a resource conserving process should be activated, wherein the resource
`
`conserving process determines if an action to conserve resources associated with transporting the
`
`television content over the packet network should be performed;
`
`if the resource conserving process should be activated:
`
`determining whether the viewer is watching the television monitor; and
`
`initiating the action to conserve resources associated with transporting the
`
`television content over the packet network upon determining that the
`
`viewer is not watching the television monitor, wherein initiating the action
`
`to conserve resources comprises sending instructions to the content
`
`provider to halt delivery of a video portion of the television content:
`
`wherein the television content delivered after sending the instructions does
`
`not comprise the video portion;
`
`if the resource conserving process should not be activated:
`
`continue providing the television content.
`
`2.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 1 further comprising monitoring viewing indicia
`
`bearing on the television monitor being watched and applying the viewing indicia to resource
`
`saving criteria to determine whether the viewer is watching the television monitor.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Applicant
`SerialNo.
`Filed
`Page
`
`: Vasudevan
`: 14/507,329
`: October 6, 2014
`:
`3 of 8
`
`ARRIS Docket No.: 20069-CON2
`
`3.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 2 further comprising receiving viewer input and
`
`wherein the viewing indicia comprise viewer input.
`
`4.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 3 further comprising: monitoring the viewer input
`
`over time; determining viewer behavior based on the viewer input over time; and generating the
`
`resource saving criteria based on the viewer behavior, wherein the viewer input over time is used
`
`to learn the viewer behavior from which the resource saving criteria is generated.
`
`5.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 2 wherein the resource saving criteria is based at
`
`least in part on preferences defined by the viewer.
`
`6.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 2 wherein the viewing indicia bears on a status of a
`
`user device.
`
`7.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 1 wherein determining whether the viewer is
`
`watching the television monitor comprises determining a status of a user device, and initiating
`
`the action to conserve resources after detecting that the status of the user device is idle.
`
`8.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 1 further comprising providing an alert for display on
`
`the television monitor in association with initiating the action to conserve resources.
`
`9.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 1 wherein initiating the action to conserve resources
`
`comprises sending instructions to the content provider to stop delivery of the television content,
`
`wherein delivery of the television content is stopped.
`
`10.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 1 wherein initiating the action to conserve resources
`
`further comprises providing local content to the television monitor for display to the viewer.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Applicant
`SerialNo.
`Filed
`Page
`
`: Vasudevan
`: 14/507,329
`: October 6, 2014
`: 4 of 8
`
`l l.
`
`(Canceled)
`
`ARRIS Docket No.: 20069-CON2
`
`12.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 1 wherein determining if the resource conserving
`
`process should be activated is based on a programming type for a program delivered via the
`
`television content.
`
`13.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 1 wherein determining if the resource conserving
`
`process should be activated is based on viewer preferences.
`
`14.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 1 wherein determining if the resource conserving
`
`process should be activated is based on at least one of a time, date, and length of a program
`
`delivered via the television content.
`
`15.
`
`(Original)
`
`The method of claim 1 wherein determining if the resource conserving
`
`process should be activated is based on a program being delivered via the television content.
`
`16.
`
`(Currently Amended)
`
`An apparatus for conserving resources associated with
`
`packet television services comprising:
`
`a first interface adapted to receive television content from a content provider over a
`
`packet network;
`
`a second interface adapted to provide the television content to a television monitor for
`
`display to a viewer; and
`
`a control system associated with the first and second interfaces and adapted to:
`
`determine if a resource conserving process should be activated, wherein the resource
`
`conserving process determines if an action to conserve resources associated with transporting the
`
`television content over the packet network should be performed;
`
`if the resource conserving process should be activated:
`
`determine whether the viewer is watching the television monitor; and
`
`4
`
`

`

`Applicant
`Sen'alNo.
`Filed
`Page
`
`: Vasudevan
`: 14/507,329
`: October6, 2014
`: 5 of 8
`
`ARRIS Docket No.: 20069-CON2
`
`initiate the action to conserve resources associated with transporting the television
`
`content over the packet network upon determining that the viewer is not
`
`watching the television monitor, wherein initiating the action to conserve
`
`resources comprises sending instructions to the content provider to halt
`
`delivefl of a video portion of the television content: wherein the television
`
`content delivered after sending the instructions does not comprise the
`
`video portion;
`
`if the resource conserving process should not be activated:
`
`allow for continued providing of the television content.
`
`17.
`
`(Original)
`
`The apparatus of claim 16 further comprising a user interface associated
`
`with the control system, which is adapted to determine whether the viewer is watching the
`
`television monitor based on viewer activity detected at the user interface.
`
`18.
`
`(Original)
`
`The apparatus of claim 16 wherein to determine whether the viewer is
`
`watching the television monitor, the control system is further adapted to determine a status of
`
`user devices, and initiate the action to conserve resources after detecting the status of the user
`
`devices.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Applicant
`Sen'alNo.
`Filed
`Page
`
`: Vasudevan
`: 14/507,329
`: October6, 2014
`: 6 of 8
`
`ARRIS Docket No.: 20069-CON2
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claim 11 has been canceled herein. Therefore, claims 1-10 and 12-18 are pending. In
`
`view of the following remarks, Assignee respectfully requests reconsideration of the Non-Final
`
`Office Action and allowance of the pending claims.
`
`1. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 16-18 are patentable over Mahvi
`
`Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 16-18 presently stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Mahvi et al. (US. Publ. No.: 2012/0071685), hereinafter “Mahvi.” For a
`
`reference to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. §102, each claim limitation must be disclosed by
`
`the reference. Assignee respectfully asserts that the cited reference does not disclose each
`
`limitation recited in the rejected claims.
`
`a. Claim 1
`
`The Office Action provides that claim 11 (a claim that is dependent upon claim 1) is
`
`objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but that the claim would be allowable
`
`if rewritten in independent form. Claim 1 has been amended herein to include the feature of
`
`previously presented claim 11. Therefore, Assignee requests that the rejection of claim 1 be
`
`withdrawn and respectfully asserts that claim 1, as currently amended, is allowable over the cited
`
`art of record.
`
`b. Claims 2-4, 6, and 7
`
`Because independent claim 1 is allowable over the cited reference, claims 2-4, 6, and 7
`
`(which depend from claim 1) are allowable for the reason that these claims include all of the
`
`limitations of claim 1. Moreover, there remain other reasons why the claims are allowable over
`
`the cited reference, and for at least any of the foregoing reasons, Assignee requests that the
`
`rejection be withdrawn.
`
`c. Claim 16
`
`Claim 16 has been amended herein to include the features of objected to claim 11.
`
`Therefore, for at least similar reasons as those provided with respect to claim 1, Assignee
`
`requests that the rejection of claim 16 be withdrawn and respectfully asserts that the claim is
`
`allowable over the cited art of record.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Applicant
`Sen'alNo.
`Filed
`Page
`
`: Vasudevan
`: 14/507,329
`: October6, 2014
`: 7 of 8
`
`(1. Claims 17-18
`
`ARRIS Docket No.: 20069-CON2
`
`Because independent claim 16 is allowable over the cited reference, claims 17-18 (which
`
`depend from claim 16) are allowable for the reason that these claims include all of the limitations
`
`of claim 16. Moreover, there remain other reasons why the claims are allowable over the cited
`
`reference and, for at least any of the foregoing reasons, Assignee requests that the rejection be
`
`withdrawn.
`
`11. Claims 5, 8-10, and 12-15 are patentable over Mahvi and Relan
`
`Claims 5, 8-10, and 12-15 presently stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §lO3(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Mahvi, in view of Relan et al. (US. Publ. No.: 2005/0229226), hereinafter
`
`“Relan.” For a combination of references to render a claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103, each
`
`claim limitation must be taught, disclosed or otherwise suggested by the combination. Assignee
`
`respectfully asserts that the cited combination does not teach, disclose or otherwise suggest each
`
`limitation recited in the rejected claims.
`
`Because independent claim 1 is allowable over the cited references, claims 5, 8-10, and
`
`12-15 (which depend from claim 1) are allowable for the reason that these claims include all of
`
`the limitations of claim 1. Moreover, there remain other reasons why the claims are allowable
`
`over the cited references, and for at least any of the foregoing reasons, Assignee requests that the
`
`rejection be withdrawn.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Applicant
`Sen'alNo.
`Filed
`Page
`
`: Vasudevan
`: 14/507,329
`: October6, 2014
`: 8 of 8
`
`ARRIS Docket No.: 20069-CON2
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`No fees are believed due with this Amendment. In the event that any fees are deemed
`
`due by the Assignee or credits owed to the Assignee, please apply any such charges or credits to
`
`deposit account 01-2125.
`
`Date:
`
`July 5, 2016
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc.
`3871 Lakefield Drive
`
`Suwanee, Georgia 30024
`67 8-473-2000 Main
`
`678-473-8470 Facsimile
`
`ARRIS Docket No.: 20069-CON2
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Bart A. Perkins/
`Bart A. Perkins
`
`Reg. No. 69,229
`
`8
`
`