DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the applicant’s request for continued examination filed 12/12/2025. The application contains claims 1-25, all examined and rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/2025 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 require the occurrence of encoding by the edge cache. Examiner could not find a support as the specification disclose the transfer of encoded user interfaces to the edge cache.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include certain methods of organizing human activities; a mental processes; and mathematical concepts, (2019 PEG)
STEP 1.
Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a device, method, and a non-transitory computer medium as in independent Claim 1, 8, 15 and in the therefrom dependent claims. Such terminals fall under the statutory category of “machine “, “processes”, “manufacture”. Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
Step 2A:
The invention is directed to providing requested data to a user associated with the different related data that could be requested by the user which is akin to Mental Process (see Alice), As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considering the limitations individually and as a whole the limitations directed to the abstract idea are:
selecting, based on one or more network parameters of a network used by the one or more user devices, based on a utilization, of an edge cache in the network, by different user devices, and based on the request for the user interface, a subset of the plurality of next user interface (Mental Proses, evaluation, observation, and judgement).
Claim recite additional elements as:
receiving, by a computing device from one or more user devices, a request for a user interface (insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution) of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g), and invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process (MPEP 2106.05(f));
by the computing device indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h) and mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f));
causing the edge cache to cache each of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces; receiving, by the computing device and from the one or more user devices, an indication of a selection of a first user interface element of the plurality of user interface elements, wherein the first user interface element corresponds to at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces; and causing the one or more user devices to display the at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces by causing the edge cache to send, to the one or more user devices, a cached version of the at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces (insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution) (MPEP 2106.05(g), and invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a generic computing system performing generic functions including generic processing of data. Accordingly the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 PEG"). Thus, under Step 2A of the Mayo framework, the Examiner holds that the claims are directed to concepts identified as abstract.
STEP 2B.
Because the claims include one or more abstract ideas, the examiner now proceeds to Step 2B of the analysis, in which the examiner considers if the claims include individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the "computer itself," "another technology," the "technical field," or significantly more than what is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" in the related arts.
The instant application includes in Claim 1 additional steps to those deemed to be abstract idea(s).
When taken the steps individually, these steps are
receiving, by the computing device indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h) and mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f));
causing the edge cache to cache each of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces; receiving, by the computing device and from the one or more user devices, an indication of a selection of a first user interface element of the plurality of user interface elements, wherein the first user interface element corresponds to at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces; and causing the one or more user devices to display the at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces by causing the edge cache to send, to the one or more user devices, a cached version of the at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces (insignificant extra-solution activity as WURC activity similar to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)” (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) and selecting, by the computing device indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h) and mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In the instant case, Claim 1 is directed to above mentioned abstract idea. Technical functions such as sending data, receiving data, receiving user input, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology (In Bilski referring to Flook, where Flook determined that an insignificant post-solution activity does not makes an otherwise patent ineligible claim patent eligible. In Bilski, the court added to Flook that pre-solution (such as data gathering) and insignificant step in the middle of a process (such as receiving user input) to be equally ineffective). The individual limitations are recited at a high level and do not provide any specific technology or techniques to perform the functions claimed.
Claim 8 recites a system comprising “one or more user devices; and a server” configured to perform the same method as set forth in claim 1, the added element of “user devices” and “server” do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because they are tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. The additional elements are also not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the action of implementing the method on a general purpose computer with at least one processor and at least one memory is tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a computer. Claim 8 is therefore rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above for claim 1.
Claim 15 recites non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause the execution of the same method as set forth in claim 1, the added element of “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because it is tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. The additional elements are also not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the action of implementing the method on a general purpose computer with at least one processor and at least one memory is tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a computer.
Claim 15 is therefore rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above for claim 1.
Looking to MPEP 2106.05 (d), based on court decisions well understood, routine and conventional computer functions or mere instruction and/or insignificant activity have been identified to include: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321,120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TU Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); O/P Techs., /no., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F,3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir, 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPG2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink," (emphasis added)}; Insignificant intermediate or post solution activity -See Bilski v. Kappos, 581 U.S. 593, 611 -12, 95 USPQ2d 1001,1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); In Bilski referring to Flook, where Flook determined that an insignificant post-solution activity does not makes an otherwise patent ineligible claim patent eligible. In Bilski, the court added to Flook that pre-solution (such as data gathering) and insignificant step in the middle of a process (such as receiving user input) to be equally ineffective. The specification and Claim do not provide any specific process with respect to the display output that would transform the function beyond what is well understood. Like as found in Electric Power Group, Bilski, the technical process to implement the input and display functions are conventional and well understood.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add "significantly more" by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to the abstract idea. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using well-understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for requesting data, determining related data, or sending the data that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any "unconventional" steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts.
Further, note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computing devices. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device that is recited in an abstract level and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore determined that the instant application not only represents an abstract idea identified as such based on criteria defined by the Courts and on USPTO examination guidelines, but also lacks the capability to bring about "Improvements to another technology or technical field" (Alice), bring about "Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself" (Alice), "Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (Bilski), "Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" (Diehr), "Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" (Mayo), "Add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (Mayo), or contain "Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (Alice), transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (McRO), or limitations directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software (Enfish).
The dependent claims, when considered individually and as a whole, likewise do not provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. For example claim 2 disclose “wherein at least one of the one or more next user interfaces comprises a blank portion for inserting a continuous stream of a video clip” (limitation is directed to the description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. claim 3 disclose “wherein the cached version of the at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces is encoded by the edge cache (limitation is directed to the description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. claim 4 disclose “wherein each of the plurality of next user interfaces comprises at least one of a static image, a video clip, a program listing, or a program guide element” (limitation is directed to the description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. claim 5 disclose “causing the edge cache to cache each of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces comprises sending, by the computing device and to the edge cache, the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces” (limitation is directed to the description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. claim 6 disclose causing the edge cache to cache each of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces comprises generating (mental process) by the computing device each of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces (a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h) and mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)). It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. claim 7 disclose “one or more user devices are configured to, upon receipt, cache the user interface and the at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces” (insignificant extra-solution activity as WURC activity similar to “receiving, saving, or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)” (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. claim 22 disclose “receiving, by the computing device and from the one or more user devices, a second indication of a second selection of a second user interface element (insignificant extra-solution activity as WURC activity similar to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)” (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); and based on determining that a third user interface corresponding to the second user interface element is not cached by the edge cache (mantal process), causing the one or more user devices to display the third user interface by sending to the one or more user devices, data corresponding to the third user interface” (insignificant extra-solution activity as WURC activity similar to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)” (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. claim 23 disclose “first use interface element correspond to a media content category, and wherein the at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces comprises a listing of a plurality of media content items belonging to the media content category” (limitation is directed to the description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. claim 24 disclose “causing the edge cache to cache each of the subset of plurality of next user interfaces is based on a quantity of requests for at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces” (limitation is directed to the description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. claim 25 disclose “a database is configured to maintain a list of associations between the plurality of user interface elements and corresponding next user interfaces, and wherein the selecting the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces comprises identifying via the database, the plurality of next user interfaces” (limitation is directed to the description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
The dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-25 these dependent claims have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Claims for the other statutory classes are similarly analyzed.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Clancy et al. [US 2004/0002987 A1, hereinafter Clancy] in view of Whyte et al. [US 2012/0159558 A1, hereinafter Whyte].
With regard to Claim 1,
Clancy teach a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and from one or more user devices, a request for a user interface ([0055], “node application 304 requests an initial user interface from gateway 302”, [0062], [0073], scrolling pages, [0078]-[0079] , “ node 314 sends a request for initial EPG data 804 to a gateway 302”);
causing the one or more user devices to display the user interface, wherein the user interface comprises a plurality of user interface elements, that are each configured to, when selected, cause display of a different next user interface of a plurality of next user interfaces (Fig. 6, arrows, Fig. 9B, ¶82, “ Gateway 302 then responds to initial EPG data request 804 by sending an initial EPG data response 816 that includes initial EPG data in the displayable format 814. Once node 314 has received initial EPG data in the displayable format 814, node 314 causes the EPG data to be displayed “, [0073], “a user can cause the displayed section 600 of the EPG to scroll. Such a scroll input can be ordered by a user, for example, by pressing page up/down/left/right button(s), by pressing single line up/down/left/right scroll button(s)”, [0083], “ user input 820 that instructs node 314 to scroll the EPG data. EPG scroll input 820 is intended to cause a new section of the EPG data to be displayed”, “node 314 sends a new EPG data request 822 to gateway 302. New EPG data request 822 includes an indication as to what EPG data and/or which EPG data section(s) is being requested”), [0094], “displayed portion 908 is excerpted from current EPG data in the displayable format 832 out of cached portion 906. Cached portion 906 is defined in the upwards, rightwards, downwards, and leftwards directions by arrows 910 … cached portion 906 may be intentionally created using a prefetching mechanism”, [0099], “user may provide the input using scroll keys, page up/down buttons, etc. from a remote control, by selecting menu options, and SO forth”, [0095], [0113], [0147], [0157], “Node determines what information database needs to fetch the next channel's/line's information figuring from end of current M lines of cache”):
selecting, by the computing device, based on the request for the user interface, a subset of the plurality of next user interfaces ([0073], “a user can cause the displayed section 600 of the EPG to scroll. Such a scroll input can be ordered by a user, for example, by pressing page up/down/left/right button(s), by pressing single line up/down/left/right scroll button(s)”, [0083], “ user input 820 that instructs node 314 to scroll the EPG data. EPG scroll input 820 is intended to cause a new section of the EPG data to be displayed”, “node 314 sends a new EPG data request 822 to gateway 302. New EPG data request 822 includes an indication as to what EPG data and/or which EPG data section(s) is being requested”), [0094], “displayed portion 908 is excerpted from current EPG data in the displayable format 832 out of cached portion 906. Cached portion 906 is defined in the upwards, rightwards, downwards, and leftwards directions by arrows 910 … cached portion 906 may be intentionally created using a prefetching mechanism”, [0099], “user may provide the input using scroll keys, page up/down buttons, etc. from a remote control, by selecting menu options, and SO forth”, [0095], “displayed portion 908 may be moved around current EPG data in the displayable format 832 along a direction 910 of cached portion 906”);
causing to cache each of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces [0094], “displayed portion 908 is excerpted from current EPG data in the displayable format 832 out of cached portion 906. Cached portion 906 is defined in the upwards, rightwards, downwards, and leftwards directions by arrows 910 … cached portion 906 may be intentionally created using a prefetching mechanism”, [0099], “user may provide the input using scroll keys, page up/down buttons, etc. from a remote control, by selecting menu options, and SO forth”, [0095], “prefetching mechanism, cached portion 906 is maintained in the vicinity of or in proximity to displayed portion 908 in each direction 910 such that one or more page scrolling request inputs from a user may be fulfilled without a user detecting EPG data retrieval latency. Hence, displayed portion 908 may be moved around current EPG data in the displayable format 832 along a direction 910 of cached portion 906”, [0113], [0147], [0157], “Node determines what information database needs to fetch the next channel's/line's information figuring from end of current M lines of cache”);
receiving, by the computing device and from the one or more user devices, an indication of a selection of a first user interface element of the plurality of user interface elements, wherein the first user interface element corresponds to at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces [0094], “displayed portion 908 is excerpted from current EPG data in the displayable format 832 out of cached portion 906. Cached portion 906 is defined in the upwards, rightwards, downwards, and leftwards directions by arrows 910 … cached portion 906 may be intentionally created using a prefetching mechanism”, [0099], “user may provide the input using scroll keys, page up/down buttons, etc. from a remote control, by selecting menu options, and SO forth”, [0095], “prefetching mechanism, cached portion 906 is maintained in the vicinity of or in proximity to displayed portion 908 in each direction 910 such that one or more page scrolling request inputs from a user may be fulfilled without a user detecting EPG data retrieval latency. Hence, displayed portion 908 may be moved around current EPG data in the displayable format 832 along a direction 910 of cached portion 906”, [0113], [0147], [0157], “Node determines what information database needs to fetch the next channel's/line's information figuring from end of current M lines of cache”); and
causing the one or more user devices to display the at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces by causing to send, to the one or more user devices, a cached version of the at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces [0094], “displayed portion 908 is excerpted from current EPG data in the displayable format 832 out of cached portion 906. Cached portion 906 is defined in the upwards, rightwards, downwards, and leftwards directions by arrows 910 … cached portion 906 may be intentionally created using a prefetching mechanism”, [0099], “user may provide the input using scroll keys, page up/down buttons, etc. from a remote control, by selecting menu options, and SO forth”, [0095], “prefetching mechanism, cached portion 906 is maintained in the vicinity of or in proximity to displayed portion 908 in each direction 910 such that one or more page scrolling request inputs from a user may be fulfilled without a user detecting EPG data retrieval latency. Hence, displayed portion 908 may be moved around current EPG data in the displayable format 832 along a direction 910 of cached portion 906”, [0113], [0147], [0157], “Node determines what information database needs to fetch the next channel's/line's information figuring from end of current M lines of cache”).
Clancy does not explicitly teach selecting, by the computing device, based on one or more network parameters of a network used by the one or more user devices, based on a utilization, of an edge cache in the network, by different user devices, causing the edge cache to cache, the edge cache to send.
Whyte teach selecting, by the computing device, based on one or more network parameters of a network used by the one or more user devices (¶6, “a cache size for an edge cache device in a VOD CDN may be based on the bandwidth availability serving the edge cache device within the CDN, title dispersion data determined by an analysis of the user requests for video content at the edge cache device or within a larger potion of the CDN“, ¶33, “given fixed cache size 310 and a given content request distribution curve 330 are assumed, and a preferred (or recommended) bandwidth 320 may be determined for the edge cache”, ¶¶35-37), based on a utilization, of an edge cache in the network, by different user devices, and based on the request for the [content], a subset of the plurality of [requested content] ([0006], ““title dispersion data determined by an analysis of the user requests for video content at the edge cache device”, [0031], “the 100 most popular assets constitute only 20% of the VOD requests over a period of time. Of course, these examples are not distribution curves, but are individual title dispersion data points that could be used to form a distribution curve by including additional title dispersion data points (e.g., the number of assets needed for top 1%, 2%, . . . , 100% of client device requests)”, ¶32, “title dispersion data may be statistically determined for a peak client device request time in a VOD system. For instance, if 7 pm-10 pm is identified as the peak content request time for a VOD system (e.g., based on a periodic count of user streams at the edge cache 120)”, ¶42, ¶33, ¶¶35-37, ¶53, “ a title dispersion function in this example may determine that the most popular 200 assets (i.e., the maximum number of assets that may reside in the cache) should account for 60% of the asset requests received at edge cache“, ¶49, “analysis in step 640 may involve accessing a content request distribution curve or executing an equation based on such a curve to determine percentage of content requests “, ¶55, “assets are identified for replacement based on the size of the assets, past usage, and predicted future requests in the VOD system”, ¶1, “ ‘edge caches,’ typically store only a small subset of the total video content available”, “it is desirable for the local caches to store the most popular video content, the content most likely to be requested by the users of the local caches in the near future”);
causing the edge cache to cache each of the subset of the plurality of [content] (¶1, “ ‘edge caches,’ typically store only a small subset of the total video content available“, “it is desirable for the local caches to store the most popular video content, the content most likely to be requested by the users of the local caches in the near future”, [0007], “after the preferred cache size is determined for the edge cache device or other caches in the CDN, the cache may be configured to operate according this preferred cache size”, [0046], “load balancing component 510 configured to communicate with the CDN (e.g., to request and receive non-cached assets from the central content library 100), and to communicate with client devices 130 a-130 n (e.g., to receive and respond to VOD assets requests) “, “dispatcher 510 to store assets (and/or remove stored assets) upon request”, ¶¶54-55, “ inactive cached assets are identified for replacement based on the size of the assets, past usage, and predicted future requests in the VOD system. Thus, the techniques and examples described in reference to FIG. 8 may apply to, for example, one or more of the middle-tier caches 110, one or more of the edge caches”);
causing the edge cache to send, to the one or more user devices, a cached version ([0001], “users may receive their requested video content from a nearby source”, [0056], “requests that edge cache 120 may receive at a peak time could potentially be provided to client devices from the cache storage without needing to download the requested asset from the central content library 100. In this example, the remaining 240 asset requests might need to be streamed from central library”, “determines that the requested asset is not stored locally in the memory of the cache device. Therefore, in step 820, the cache device requests the asset from a higher level cache, or from the central content library“).
Clancy and Whyte are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from a similar field of endeavor of prefetching data. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Clancy to include the ability to use edge cache resulting in resolutions as disclosed by Whyte with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Clancy as described above to alleviate loads of the streaming media service on network by requesting the number of user interface that could be in high demand to reduce the amount of data transferred between a server and edge cache and to prevent waste substantial time and money by taking into consideration the delivery cost for assets as the assets have high variable size, and similarly to highly variable network costs for retrieving the different sized assets (Whyte, [0003]-[0004], [0034]).
With regard to Claim 4,
Clancy-Whyte teach the method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of next user interfaces comprises at least one of a static image, a video clip, a program listing, or a program guide element (Clancy, Fig. 6, [0148] determines that the requested asset is not stored locally in the memory of the cache device. Therefore, in step 820, the cache device requests the asset from a higher level cache, or from the central content library, Whyte, Abstract, ¶72). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 5,
Clancy-Whyte teach the method of claim 1, wherein the causing the edge cache to cache each of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces comprises sending, by the computing device and to the edge cache, the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces (Clancy, FIGS. 9A and 9B, ¶24, ”EPG database 116 stores electronic files of program data 120 which is used to generate an electronic program guide””, ¶¶92-93, ¶94, “Displayed portion 908 is excerpted from current EPG data in the displayable format 832 out of cached portion 906. Cached portion 906 is defined in the upwards, rightwards, downwards, and leftwards directions by arrows 910”, “cached portion 906 may be intentionally created using a prefetching mechanism”, ¶95, “cached portion 906 is maintained in the vicinity of or in proximity to displayed portion 908 in each direction 910 such that one or more page scrolling request inputs from a user may be fulfilled without a user detecting EPG data retrieval latency”, ¶147, “making an asynchronous request for a new page (N−1 lines) of data; scrolling immediately to the cached lines (M in this case being N−1); and then, by the time the scrolling is completed, receiving the asynchronous fulfillment of the earlier request. This EPG data request fulfillment is appended to the document but invisible to the user; it becomes the new part of the cache for quick response to subsequent user downward scrolling action(s)”, ¶¶157-158, “Node determines what information database needs to fetch the next channel's/line's information figuring from end of current M lines of cache”, Whyte, ¶21, “A central content library 100 … may store all of the content available in the content distribution network, and may distribute the content via multiple middle-tier caching devices 110 (e.g., regional head ends). The central content library 100 may communicate with the middle-tier caches 110 … Each middle-tier cache 110 may communicate … with one or more edge caches 120”, ¶22, “Thus, the content distribution network in this example is a centralized network including a hierarchical three-tier caching architecture, so that each client device 130 a-130 n communicates only with its assigned edge cache 120, and each edge cache 120 communicates only with its associated middle-tier cache 110”, ¶56, “the cache device receiving the VOD asset request (e.g., edge cache 120 or middle-tier cache 110) determines that the requested asset is not stored locally in the memory of the cache device. Therefore, in step 820, the cache device requests the asset from a higher level cache, or from the central content library 100 in the CDN”, ¶57, “the requested asset may be provided to the client device 130 a through the levels of the CDN hierarchy after the asset is retrieved from the higher level storage. Additionally, at each caching level along the asset retrieval path, the caching devices may decide to add the newly retrieved asset to the cache storage”). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 6,
Clancy-Whyte teach the method of claim 1, wherein the causing the edge cache to cache each of the subset of the plurality of next user interface comprises:
generating, by the computing device, each of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces (Clancy, ¶94, “Displayed portion 908 is excerpted from current EPG data in the displayable format 832 out of cached portion 906”, “cached portion 906 may be intentionally created using a prefetching mechanism”, [0157], “Node determines what information database needs to fetch the next channel's/line's information figuring from end of current M lines of cache”, [0092], “If a page scroll request was made by the user (e.g., at EPG scroll input 820 (of FIG. 8B)), then one line of previous EPG data may be maintained while the remainder of the EPG display 902 is occupied by new EPG data”, Whyte, ¶42, “preferred number of assets to be stored locally at the edge cache 120 may be calculated based on, for example, at least (1) an expected request rate at the edge cache 120, (2) the available rate of asset transfers determined in step 420, and/or (3) the title dispersion analysis data”, ¶41, “title dispersion distribution curve and/or a title dispersion equation, whereby the curve/equation could receive either a number or percentage of most popular titles and then provide the percent of overall requests accounted for that those titles”, ¶¶54-56, Clancy teach generating next EPG user interface pages via prefetching and page construction (¶92, ¶94, ¶157) and Whyte teaches distributing generated content to edge cache based on request patterns (¶¶41-42, ¶¶54-56). Therefore the generated next user interface are sent to and cached by the edge cache as required). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 7,
Clancy-Whyte teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more user devices are configured to, upon receipt, cache the user interface and the at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces (Clancy, Fig. 9A-9B, [0094], “displayed portion 908 is excerpted from current EPG data in the displayable format 832 out of cached portion 906. Cached portion 906 is defined in the upwards, rightwards, downwards, and leftwards directions by arrows 910 … cached portion 906 may be intentionally created using a prefetching mechanism”, [0095], [0113], [0147], [0157]). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
Regarding claims 8 and 15,
Claims 8 and 15 are similar in scope to claim 1; therefore they are rejected under similar rationale. Clancy-Whyte further teach one or more user devices, an edge cache, and a server configured. In addition Clancy-Whyte teach a non-transitory computer storage medium storage storing instructions
Regarding claims 11 and 18,
Claims 11 and 18 are similar in scope to claim 4; therefore they are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 12 and 19,
Claims 12 and 19 are similar in scope to claim 5; therefore they are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 13 and 20,
Claims 13 and 20 are similar in scope to claim 6; therefore they are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 14 and 21,
Claims 14 and 21 are similar in scope to claim 7; therefore they are rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 22,
Clancy-Whyte teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the computing device and from the one or more user devices, a second indication of a second selection of a second user interface element (Clancy, ¶92, “If a page scroll request was made by the user … then one line of previous EPG data may be maintained while the remainder of the EPG display 902 is occupied by new EPG data. If, on the other hand, a single-line scroll request was made by the user, then one line of new EPG data is displayed while the remainder of the EPG display 904 is occupied by previous EPG data. The selection and display of the EPG displays 902 and/or 904 may be effectuated from the total current EPG data in the displayable format 832 using, for example, at least one CSS style sheet. It should be understood that scrolling operations and the “lines” of EPG data as used herein may be in an upwards or downwards direction or in a leftwards or rightwards direction”, ¶95, “displayed portion 908 may be moved around current EPG data in the displayable format 832 along a direction 910 of cached portion 906”); and
based on determining that a third user interface corresponding to the second user interface element is not cached by the edge cache (Whyte, ¶¶53-56, “cache device receiving the VOD asset request (e.g., edge cache 120 or middle-tier cache 110) determines that the requested asset is not stored locally in the memory of the cache device. Therefore, in step 820, the cache device requests the asset from a higher level cache, or from the central content library“, “a requested asset that is not cached at an edge cache 120 might be found at the next higher level cache, or the next higher level cache, and so on, before the requested asset must ultimately be retrieved from the central content library”), causing the one or more user devices to display the third user interface by sending to the one or more user devices, data corresponding to the third user interface (¶¶53-56, “remaining 240 asset requests might need to be streamed from central library”). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 23,
Clancy-Whyte teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first user interface element corresponds to a media content category, and wherein the at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces comprises a listing of a plurality of media content items belonging to the media content category (Clancy, Fig. 6, ¶22, “System 100 facilitates distribution of content and program data to multiple viewers“, ¶23, “stored content 114, such as movies, television programs, commercials, music, and similar audio and/or video content”, ¶24, “ Program data 120 includes program titles, ratings, characters, descriptions, actor names, station identifiers, channel identifiers, schedule information, and so on”, ¶25, “EPG server 118 processes the EPG data prior to distribution to generate a published version of the program data which contains programming information for many or all channels for one or more days”). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 24,
Clancy-Whyte teach the method of claim 1, wherein the causing the edge cache to cache each of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces is based on a quantity of requests for at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces (¶31, “specific edge cache 120, the distribution curve factor 330 may represent the “title dispersion” of content requests from the client devices 130 a-130 n of that edge cache“, “at an edge cache 120, it may be observed that the 100 most popular assets (as determined, for example, by the number of client requests over a period of time) constitute 50% of all of the VOD requests received from client devices“, “number of assets based on a desired percentage of requests to be handled at a cache device“, ¶32, “ 20% of the VOD requests received from the client devices 130 a-130 n correspond to the 100 most popular titles”, “determining the number of titles corresponding to the next 20% of VOD requests”, ¶33, ¶49, “accessing a content request distribution curve or executing an equation based on such a curve to determine percentage of content requests associated with a fixed number of asset titles“, “most popular assets (i.e., the number of assets capable of being stored in the 1 TB storage of the edge cache 120) correspond to 60% of the content requests received at edge cache”). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 25,
Clancy-Whyte teach the method of claim 1, wherein a database is configured to maintain a list of associations between the plurality of user interface elements and corresponding next user interfaces, and wherein the selecting the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces comprises identifying, via the database, the plurality of next user interfaces (¶79, “Gateway 302 includes an EPG database 806 that stores all or part of the EPG data for a given locale or lineup”, “ requested EPG data is extracted using an EPG data extraction mechanism 808. Any general database accessing approach may be employed”, ¶80, “EPG database 806 may actually store EPG data in any binary data format, text data format, SQL-based data format”, ¶151, “2) Database fulfills request in XML”, ¶152, “XML transformed via XSL into HTML that is appropriate for displaying N lInes starting from the default channel (with M lines of data “hidden” at the top and bottom each of the grid), including “encoding” any data that the node may need to make successive requests”, ¶153, “New lines of HTML received by node and inserted into document”, ¶¶156-157, “ Node determines what information database needs to fetch the next channel’s/line’s information figuring from end of current M lines of cache”). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
Claims 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Clancy et al. [US 2004/0002987 A1, hereinafter Clancy] in view of Whyte et al. [US 2012/0159558 A1, hereinafter Whyte] in view of Ludvig et al. [US 7,091968 B1, hereinafter Ludvig].
With regard to Claim 2,
Clancy-Whyte teach the method of claim 1. The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
Clancy-Whyte do not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the one or more next user interfaces comprises a blank portion for inserting a continuous stream of a video clip.
Ludvig teach wherein at least one of the one or more next user interfaces comprises a blank portion for inserting a continuous stream of a video clip (Fig. 5A, 504, 506, 508, Fig. 6-7, Abstract, “subscriber can transition from one program guide page to the next without interruption of the background or informational video as the program guide page graphic is changed”).
Clancy-Whyte and Ludvig are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from a similar field of endeavor of proving electronic programs guide. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Clancy-Whyte to include a video display area within the user interface resulting in resolutions as disclosed by Ludvig with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Clancy-Whyte as described above to allow the display promotional and advertising video that could bring profit through the usage of a blank portion of the screen and bring the user’s attentions to different content that could be interesting to the user which enrich the user experience and increase the user satisfaction by watching interesting videos instead of limiting the display to static images (Ludvig, Col. 5, “if the video is an advertisement, tracks video utilization to facilitate billing to an advertiser whenever a particular advertisement is transmitted”).
Regarding claims 9 and 16,
Claims 9 and 16 are similar in scope to claim 2; therefore they are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Clancy et al. [US 2004/0002987 A1, hereinafter Clancy] in view of Whyte et al. [US 2012/0159558 A1, hereinafter Whyte] in view of Yan [US 2008/0307108 A1, hereinafter Yan]
With regard to Claim 3,
Clancy-Whyte teach the method of claim 1, the method of claim 1, wherein the cached version of the at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces is encoded by the [server] (Clancy, Fig. 7, [0027], [0152], pages are encoded before sending to the users’ device). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
Clancy-Whyte does not explicitly teach encoded by the edge cache.
Yan teach [requested content] encoded by the edge cache (Yan, [0143], “MRFP may implement the following functions: … processing of streaming media format such as coding decoding format conversion, video content compaction and video content mixing; distribution of streaming media contents in a plurality of manners to realize conversion among different distribution manners; streaming media content encryption function”, [0141], “MRFP supports distribution storage and delivery transmission of specified streaming media contents … MRFP may be a central media server or edge media server for providing actual streaming media contents”).
Clancy-Whyte and Yan are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from a similar field of endeavor of prefetching data and usage of edge cache. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Clancy-Whyte to include the ability to encode data at edge cache resulting in resolutions as disclosed by Yan with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Clancy-Whyte as described above to reduce latency and cost while improving security and QoS (Yan, ¶32). This is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claims 10 and 17,
Claims 10 and 17 are similar in scope to claim 3; therefore they are rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argue that the current invention is integrated into a practical application. The claims recite a process whereby a request for a "user interface" is received, then a computing device selects "a subset of the plurality of next user interfaces" based on fundamentally technical concepts related to technical problems like "utilization, of an edge cache in the network, by different user devices" and like "network parameters of a network used by the one or more user devices," then the computing device ultimately "caus[es] the one or more user devices to display the at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces by causing the edge cache to send, to the one or more user devices, a cached version of the at least one of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces."
Examiner respectfully disagrees, a user is able to identify data to request based on specific parameters and to return the results for the request. Sending, receiving, and displaying data is an insignificant extra solution that the court identified as a WURC activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), usage of an edge cache indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h) and mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) as the claims did not disclose any form of usage of the edge cache in any form different than the normal expected steps to use an edge cache.
Applicant argue that claims are not akin to mental process as the claims recite various limitations (e.g., "causing the one or more user devices to display [a] user interface," "causing [an] edge cache to cache each of the subset of the plurality of next user interfaces") that cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the examiner did not claim that displaying data over a display device or that the usage of servers to store and exchange data is a mental process. The argued limitations as Sending, receiving, storing and displaying data is an insignificant extra solution that the court identified as a WURC activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), usage of an edge cache indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h) and mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) as the claims did not disclose any form of usage of the edge cache in any form different than the normal expected steps to use an edge cache.
Applicant argue that invention nonetheless is integrated into a practical application. The claims recite a process whereby a request for a “user interface” is received, then a computing device determines “one or more next user interfaces reachable by selection of at least one element in the requested user interface” based on fundamentally technical concepts like “network parameters of a network used by the one or more user devices,” then the computing device sends multiple “user interface/s],” including the “requested user interface” and “the one or more next user interfaces.” This is clearly a practical application of any alleged mental process. (Remarks P.8-9).
Examiner respectfully disagree,
claim 1 limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device that is recited in an abstract level and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions. Looking to MPEP 2106.05 (d). The claim disclose a request for a “user interface” and computing device sends multiple “user interface/s],” including the “requested user interface” and “the one or more next user interfaces.” is an extra solution insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) that is well-understood and conventional functions and “one or more next user interfaces reachable by selection of at least one element in the requested user interface” based on fundamentally technical concepts like “network parameters of a network used by the one or more user devices” is a mental process (observation, judgment). Therefore, invention is not integrated into a practical application. In other words, user interface and sending and receiving data cannot be considered a specific computing data as any computer that include display can display data. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321,120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Insignificant intermediate or post solution activity -See Bilski v. Kappos, 581 U.S. 593, 611 -12, 95 USPQ2d 1001,1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); In Bilski referring to Flook, where Flook determined that an insignificant post-solution activity does not makes an otherwise patent ineligible claim patent eligible. In Bilski, the court added to Flook that pre-solution (such as data gathering) and insignificant step in the middle of a process (such as receiving user input) to be equally ineffective. Like as found in Electric Power Group, Bilski, the technical process to implement the input and display functions are conventional and well understood. Therefore; considering the provided additional steps they add to the abstract idea using well-understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for requesting data or sending the data that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves.
Applicant argue that present Step 2A Prong Two the Specification, by disclosing "requesting the encoded UI states associated with encoded UI state 500 by metadata 504 contemporaneous to delivery of encoded UI state 500 to user devices 308 and 310, edge caches 318 and 320 may more efficiently deliver the UI states for [programs]." (Specification para. 0041), provide an unequivocally the "technical solution to a technological problem".
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the specification ¶41 disclose a conclusionary statement that cannot be considered as a technical solution to a technological problem on its own. The specification need to disclose the current technological problem, current state of the art and what is considered as an improvement to the current state of the art at the invention time that solved that technological problem.
Applicant argue that Whyte discuss bandwidth availability and asset caching in CDN edge caches, but does not relate to caching user interfaces. Therefore it cannot remedy the missing claim limitations in Clancy regarding selecting and caching subset of UI based on network parameters and edge cache utilization.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, although Whyte discusses caching of media assets rather that the related user interfaces (UI) data per se, Clancy teaches that EPG pages and listings (UI) are generated and prefetched by the computing device. Whyte teaches distributing selected content to edge caches based on network parameters and load metrics to reduce central server load. A person of ordinary skill of the art would have modified Clancy to distribute EPG UI data to edge caches to reduce latency, thereby causing the edge cache to cache a subset of next UI selected based on network parameters and edge cache utilization. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The double patent rejection has been respectfully withdrawn based on the amendments.
As to the remaining independent claims, applicant argue that they are allowable due to their respective direct and indirect dependencies upon one of the aforementioned Independent claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees, Independent claims were not allowable as stated in the paragraph above in this “Response to Arguments” section in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent No. US 8,886,715 B1 issued to Zhu et al. Zhu disclose the ability to pre-fetch map tiles based on the current displayed data and the data corresponding to the user interaction See at least Fig. 3-4, Abstract, Col. 6, lines 43-53
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action 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 from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED ABOU EL SEOUD whose telephone number is (303)297-4285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-6:00pm MT.
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, Michelle Bechtold can be reached at (571) 431-0762. 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.
/MOHAMED ABOU EL SEOUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148