DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to claims filed 14 January 2026.
Claims 1-11, and 14-24 are pending.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the remarks filed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10, applicant argues:
“The cited portion of Faulkner describes receiving a workload configuration request that includes a “tag”…instead of teaching or suggesting “generating a signature” that “represents a modified channel request for transcoding” as recited in Claim 1…
“For at least these reasons, Faulkner, Gao, and Wang, alone and in combination, do not teach or suggest Claim 1 as amended.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The previous office action cited FAULKNER as teaching:
“[0056] Workloads are defined based on incoming input/output (I/O) requests (i.e., read and write requests) (i.e., “content”) and use resources within storage system 202 for processing (i.e., implementing “functionality”) I/O requests. A workload may include a plurality of streams, where each stream includes one or more requests issued by clients (i.e., a requested workload comprises I/O streams, or “channels” issued from clients, or “content providers” and is therefore considered a “channel request”)” (emphasis added).
In other words, the previous office action established that FAULKNER at least suggests generating a tag, representing the claimed “signature” that is associated with, or “represents” an I/O stream or “channel”. The applicant fails to argue the merits of this interpretation.
Further, the previous office action cited GAO as teaching:
“Column 12, Lines 37-41: When video data is to be processed, a software application can access the configuration information to identify a combination of video processing tools to be used in processing the video under conditions of a scenario. (Column 2, Lines 64-67: The system 100 includes video processing tools 110 which can be used together as video processing tool combinations (such as combinations 113, 115) to process digital video (e.g., for playback or transcoding) (i.e., transcoding includes decoding of “encoded” video content (see, for example Column 3, Lines 17-19)) (emphasis added).
In other words, the previous office action established that GAO teaches processing a channel request to implement content-aware transcoding functionality on digital video. The applicant fails to argue the merits of this interpretation.
Further, regarding the amended portion of the claims, the current office action newly cites FAULKNER as additionally teaching:
“[0089] In block B604, a request is received for a new workload or to move a workload to a new volume. The workload request includes a tag, an expected utilization, latency and/or a throughput rate (i.e., tags are associated with a request to move, or “modify” a workload from an old volume to a new volume)) (emphasis added).
In other words, the current office action establishes that FAULKNER, and GAO at least suggests that the tags, representing the claimed signatures, are associated with a request to modify an existing allocation of a workload to a volume, thereby teaching the amended claim language of “wherein the signature associated with the channel request represents a modified channel request for transcoding”. The applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-14 regarding claims 6, and 16, comprise similar arguments and are rejected for similar rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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. See 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 actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, 14, and 16 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.10,810,077 B1 (hereafter Reference Patent), in view of WANG et al. Pub. No.: US 2016/0234506 A1 (hereafter WANG). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1, and 14 of the instant application, they are not patentably distinct over claim 1 of the reference patent. The following table highlights the similarities between them.
Instant Application
Reference Patent
1. A computer-implemented method to manage content-aware processing of encoded content comprising:
obtaining a channel request to implement content-aware transcoding functionality for incoming encoded content from a content provider corresponding to a request to implement transcoding functionality for incoming encoded content from a content provider;
generating a signature associated with the channel request to implement content-aware transcoding functionality for the incoming encoded content from the content provider…
determining that the signature associated with the channel request matches a signature associated with an identified test channel configuration from a set of test channel configurations, wherein each individual test channel configuration of the set of test channel configurations identifies one or more computing devices for implementing the content-aware transcoding functionality;
identifying a computing device for implementing the channel request, the identified computing device associated with the identified test channel configuration; and
causing execution of the request to implement content-aware transcoding functionality for the incoming encoded content on the identified computing device.
14. The system of claim 6, wherein the set of computing devices includes a virtual machine instance.
1. A system to manage encoded content processing comprising:
one or more computing devices comprising a processor coupled to a memory including computer-executable instructions for implementing a content delivery management service, wherein the content delivery management service is configured to:
obtain a test channel request to implement a transcoding functionality for encoded content;
define test channel configuration information, wherein the test channel configuration information defines at least one or more attributes of the encoded content of the test channel request;
for a set of one or more virtual machine instances operable to implement transcoding functionality, measure individual performance metrics of individual virtual machine instances based on implementation of the transcoding functionality on each of the individual virtual machine instances, according to the defined test channel configuration information;
responsive to determining that the individual performance metrics of one or more individual virtual machine instances of the set of one or more virtual machine instances satisfy minimum performance metric thresholds, associate the one or more individual virtual machine instances with the test channel configuration information;
generate at least one signature associated with the test channel configuration information, wherein the signature associated with the test channel configuration information corresponds to the one or more attributes of the encoded content of the test channel request;
obtain a channel request corresponding to a request to implement transcoding functionality for an incoming encoded content from a content provider, wherein the channel request defines at least one or more attributes of the incoming encoded content;
generate a signature associated with the channel request, wherein the signature associated with the channel request corresponds to the one or more attributes of the incoming encoded content of the channel request;
based on a comparison between the signature associated with the channel request and the at least one signature associated with the test channel configuration information, identify one or more candidate virtual machine instances from the one or more individual virtual machine instances of the set of one or more virtual machine instances associated with the test channel configuration information;
based on additional selection criteria for the one or more candidate virtual machine instances, cause execution of the transcoding functionality of the channel request on a candidate virtual machine instance of the one or more candidate virtual machine instances.
While claims 1 and 14 of the reference application teach generating a signature corresponding to attributes of incoming encoded content of a channel request for transcoding, the reference patent does not explicitly teach:
wherein the signature associated with the channel request represents a modified channel request;
However, in analogous art that similarly teaches generating a signal corresponding to attributes of an incoming request, FAULKNER teaches:
wherein the signature associated with the channel request represents a modified channel request ([0106] Receiving a request for configuring a workload by a processor executing a management application in a networked storage system, the request including a tag (i.e., “signature” associated with the workload request) with information for identifying a workload type and information defining an expected performance characteristic of the workload. [0089] In block B604, a request is received for a new workload or to move a workload to a new volume. The workload request includes a tag, an expected utilization, latency and/or a throughput rate (i.e., tags are associated with a request to move, or “modify” a workload from an old volume to a new volume)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined FAULKNER’s teaching of a signature representing a modified request, with reference patent’s teaching of a signature corresponding to attributes of incoming encoded content of a channel request for transcoding, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that generates a signature corresponding to attributes of incoming encoded content of a channel request for transcoding, as in reference patent, where the signature represents a modification of the request, as in FAULKNER. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to enable a request to be modified after being initially submitted to improve the workload configuration.
While reference patent and FAULKNER discuss processing incoming content associated with a signature, reference patent and FAULKNER do not explicitly teach:
wherein the signature associated with the channel request includes an adjusted value corresponding to an increase from an originally specified value to a characterized maximum possible value of computing device resources to execute the transcoding functionality.
However, in analogous art that similarly teaches processing of incoming content, WANG teaches:
wherein the signature associated with the channel request includes an adjusted value corresponding to an increase from an originally specified value to a characterized maximum possible value of computing device resources to execute the transcoding functionality ([0003] A video encoder can maintain a VBV Buffer (Video Buffering Verifier Buffer) that emulates a decoding device's input buffer. The video encoder can generate a bitstream, and use the model of the VBV Buffer to adjust the bitrate of the bitstream such that it avoids overflow and/or underflow of the VBV Buffer. [0004] The fullness level of the VBV Buffer can be modeled over time by comparing a constant input rate tied to an average number of bits per frame with a variable output rate tied to the actual bitrate of the generated bitstream. When the modeled fullness level nears a maximum threshold, the encoder can decrease values of a quantization parameter to increase the bitstream's bitrate (i.e., the bitrate represents an “attribute” of the incoming content having an initial value that is increased, by lowering the quantization value, to a maximum value based on the modeled fullness value reaching a maximum threshold). Such an increase in the bitstream's bitrate can raise the output rate closer to the constant input rate, and thereby decrease the modeled fullness level));
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined WANG’s teaching of adjusting a bitrate attribute of an incoming stream of content to a maximum value, with the reference application and FAULKNER’s teaching of performing transcoding on a stream of content based on attributes of the content, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that adjusts a bitrate to a maximum value, as in WANG, based on attributes of incoming content for transcoding, as in the reference application. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to ensure that a VBV never overflows or underflows (WANG [0003]).
Regarding claims 6, and 16 of the instant application, they are not patentably distinct over claim 1 of the reference patent.
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 1-3, 5-9, 11, 16, 18-21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAULKNER Pub. No.: US 2017/0168729 A1 (hereafter FAULKNER), in view of GAO Patent No.: US 8,982,942 B2 (hereafter GAO), in view of WANG et al. Pub. No.: US 2016/0234506 A1 (hereafter WANG).
FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG were cited previously.
Regarding claim 1, FAULKNER teaches the invention substantially as claimed, including:
A computer-implemented method to manage content-aware processing of encoded content comprising:
obtaining a channel request…corresponding to a request to implement [functionality] for incoming [content] from a content provider ([0089] In block B604, a request is received for a new workload. [0056] Workloads are defined based on incoming input/output (I/O) requests (i.e., read and write requests) (i.e., “content”) and use resources within storage system 202 for processing (i.e., implementing “functionality”) I/O requests. A workload may include a plurality of streams, where each stream includes one or more requests issued by clients (i.e., a requested workload comprises I/O streams, or “channels” issued from clients, or “content providers” and is therefore considered a “channel request”));
generating a signature associated with the channel request to implement content-aware [functionality] for the incoming [content] from the content provider, wherein the signature associated with the channel request represents a modified channel request ([0106] Receiving a request for configuring a workload by a processor executing a management application in a networked storage system, the request including a tag with information for identifying a workload type and information defining an expected performance characteristic of the workload (i.e., information identifying a workload type and defining expected performance characteristics represent a “signature” of the workload that at least partially corresponds to the type, being an “attribute” of the incoming request. For example, as described in [0089], the tag indicates that the incoming content corresponds to a Microsoft Outlook Email Server). [0089] In block B604, a request is received for a new workload or to move a workload to a new volume. The workload request includes a tag, an expected utilization, latency and/or a throughput rate (i.e., tags are associated with a request to move, or “modify” a workload from an old volume to a new volume))…
determining that the signature associated with the channel request matches a signature associated with an identified test channel configuration from a set of test channel configurations (([0091], Lines 1-5: In block B608, using the tag information, the comparable generator 223 determines a workload that is comparable to the requested workload. In one aspect, the comparable generator 223 uses the data structure 125 shown in FIG. 6B to identify the comparable workload (i.e., a comparable workload is a workload having a tag that matches the tag of the received workload. The comparable workload is considered a “test” workload because the comparable workloads are “tested” to determine historical workload performance data (see Fig. 6B)))), wherein each individual test channel configuration of the set of test channel configurations identifies one or more computing devices for implementing the content-aware [functionality] ([0104] Data structure 125 stores information regarding a plurality of workloads identified by a workload identifier 620. The workload type 622 identifies the workload type. This information is indicated by the tag. The workload performance data 624 includes the historical data 624A and current data 624B. The resources 626 allocated to the workload are identified, which may include the storage system nodes, volumes, aggregates and other resource types (i.e., “computing devices” in the form of resources associated with requests to process I/O streams are recorded for comparison));
identifying a computing device for implementing the channel request, the identified computing device associated with the identified test channel configuration (([0102], Lines 1-3: Based on the resource information, in block B614, an output is generated by the comparable generator 223 that provides a best resource match for the requested workload (i.e., providing, or “identifying” resources, or “computing devices” that best match the “signature” of the requested workload))); and
causing execution of the request to implement content-aware [functionality] for the incoming [content] on the identified computing device ([0026] Performance manager 121…allocates an appropriate resource for servicing the workload (i.e., servicing the workload executes the workload to perform the “functionality” on the incoming I/O stream using the identified resources)).
While FAULKNER teaches executing workloads to implement functionality on streams of I/O, FAULKER does not explicitly teach:
obtaining a channel request to implement content-aware transcoding functionality for incoming encoded content from a content provider corresponding to a request to implement transcoding functionality for incoming encoded content from a content provider;
However, in analogous art that similarly processes streams of information, GAO teaches:
obtaining a channel request to implement content-aware transcoding functionality for incoming encoded content from a content provider corresponding to a request to implement transcoding functionality for incoming encoded content from a content provider (Column 12, Lines 37-41: When video data is to be processed, a software application can access the configuration information to identify a combination of video processing tools to be used in processing the video under conditions of a scenario. (Column 2, Lines 64-67: The system 100 includes video processing tools 110 which can be used together as video processing tool combinations (such as combinations 113, 115) to process digital video (e.g., for playback or transcoding) (i.e., transcoding includes decoding of “encoded” video content (see, for example Column 3, Lines 17-19))).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined GAO’s teaching of performing transcoding functionality on streams of encoded video content, with FAULKNER’s teaching of performing functionality on streams of content, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that receives a request to perform functionality on a stream of data, as in FAULKNER, where the stream is encoded and the functionality is transcoding functionality, as in GAO. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination so that content data may be compressed/encoded for transmission, and then decoded to achieve high transmission rates over raw data transmission.
While FAULKNER and GAO discuss generating signatures for transcoding requests used in order to identify resources to implement the requests, FAULKNER and GAO do not explicitly teach:
wherein the signature associated with the channel request includes an adjusted value corresponding to an increase from an originally specified value to a characterized maximum possible value of computing device resources to execute the transcoding functionality;
However, in analogous art that similarly discusses allocation of resources to implement requests, WANG teaches:
wherein the signature associated with the channel request includes an adjusted value corresponding to an increase from an originally specified value to a characterized maximum possible value of computing device resources to execute the transcoding functionality ([0003] A video encoder can maintain a VBV Buffer (Video Buffering Verifier Buffer) that emulates a decoding device's input buffer. The video encoder can generate a bitstream, and use the model of the VBV Buffer to adjust the bitrate of the bitstream such that it avoids overflow and/or underflow of the VBV Buffer. [0004] The fullness level of the VBV Buffer can be modeled over time by comparing a constant input rate tied to an average number of bits per frame with a variable output rate tied to the actual bitrate of the generated bitstream. When the modeled fullness level nears a maximum threshold, the encoder can decrease values of a quantization parameter to increase the bitstream's bitrate (i.e., the bitrate represents an “attribute” of the incoming content having an initial value that is increased, by lowering the quantization value, to a maximum value based on the modeled fullness value reaching a maximum threshold). Such an increase in the bitstream's bitrate can raise the output rate closer to the constant input rate, and thereby decrease the modeled fullness level));
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined WANG’s teaching of adjusting a bitrate attribute of an incoming stream of content to a maximum value, with the combination of FAULKNER and GAO’s teaching of performing transcoding on a stream of content based on attributes of the content, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that adjusts a bitrate to a maximum value, as in WANG, based on attributes of incoming content for transcoding, as in FAULKNER and GAO. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to ensure that a VBV never overflows or underflows (WANG [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, FAULKNER further teaches:
identifying the computing device comprises selecting the computing device from a plurality of candidate computing devices individually associated with the signature associated with the channel request ([0104] Data structure 125 stores information regarding a plurality of workloads identified by a workload identifier 620. The workload type 622 identifies the workload type. This information is indicated by the tag. The workload performance data 624 includes the historical data 624A and current data 624B. The resources 626 allocated to the workload are identified, which may include the storage system nodes, volumes, aggregates and other resource types (i.e., plural resources 626 may be associated with a signature workload type 622. For example a workload type may be “Microsoft Outlook Email Server”, as discussed in [0089], and any resource used to execute this type of workload will be associated with this signature tag)).
Regarding claim 3, FAULKNER further teaches:
the computing device is associated with the signature associated with the channel request based at least in part on a determination that a performance metric obtained from the computing device during implementation of [functionality] according to the identified test channel configuration satisfies a threshold ([0101] In block B612, the comparable generator 223 obtains resources using the expected performance for the requested workload. This information may also be stored at data structure 125 as well as data structure 111 maintained by the storage system. Data structure 125 identifies the various storage resources, for example, nodes, storage devices and others. A performance parameter is associated with each resource where the performance parameter indicates latency, utilization and throughput associated with the resource. [0106] Receiving a request for configuring a workload by a processor executing a management application in a networked storage system, the request including a tag with information for identifying a workload type and information defining an expected performance characteristic of the workload; determining by the processor a comparable workload using the tag information; obtaining by the processor current and historical performance data associated with the comparable workload; estimating by the processor performance characteristic of the requested workload using performance data of the comparable workload; identifying by the processor a resource of the networked storage system that meets the estimated performance characteristic (i.e., resources are selected which meet, or exceed an expected performance characteristic representing a “threshold”)).
Regarding claim 5, FAULKNER further teaches:
the identified test channel configuration comprises a test channel with content having at least the adjusted value ([0091] In block B608, using the tag information, the comparable generator 223 determines a workload that is comparable to the requested workload. In one aspect, the comparable generator 223 uses the data structure 125 shown in FIG. 6B to identify the comparable workload. Once the comparable workload is identified, the comparable generator 223 obtains the current and historical performance data to predict the performance of the requested workload (i.e., each resource is associated with the type of workload having the adjusted parameters)).
Regarding claims 6-7, they comprise limitations similar to claims 1 and 3, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale. FAULKNER further teaches the additional limitations of the system comprising: a data store configured to store computer-executable instructions; and a processor in communication with the data store, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to perform operations ([Claim 15] A system, comprising: a memory containing machine readable medium comprising machine executable code having stored thereon instructions; and a processor module of a management console of a networked storage system coupled to the memory, the processor module configured to execute the machine executable code).
Regarding claim 8, FAULKNER further teaches:
selecting the first computing device from the set of computing devices associated with the first test channel configuration is based at least in part on one or more of performance metrics, historical data regarding implementation of [functionality], cost, or total number of instantiated virtual machine instances of a particular type ([0104] Data structure 125 stores information regarding a plurality of workloads identified by a workload identifier 620. The workload type 622 identifies the workload type. This information is indicated by the tag. The workload performance data 624 includes the historical data 624A and current data 624B. The resources 626 allocated to the workload are identified, which may include the storage system nodes, volumes, aggregates and other resource types. [0101] In block B612, the comparable generator 223 obtains (i.e., “selects”) resources using the expected performance for the requested workload. This information may also be stored at data structure 125 as well as data structure 111 maintained by the storage system. Data structure 125 identifies the various storage resources, for example, nodes, storage devices and others. A performance parameter is associated with each resource where the performance parameter indicates latency, utilization and throughput associated with the resource (i.e., a best resource is obtained based on information in data structure 125, including historical and current performance metrics)).
Regarding claim 9, FAULKNER further teaches:
selecting the first computing device from the set of computing devices is based at least in part on a prioritization of the set of computing devices ([0102] Based on the resource information, in block B614, an output is generated by the comparable generator 223 that provides a best resource match for the requested workload (i.e., resources identified as the “best” are selected first, or “prioritized” over resources that aren’t the best)).
Regarding claim 11, FAULKNER further teaches:
the signature associated with the first test channel configuration comprises a primary signature ([0089 The workload request includes a tag, an expected utilization, latency and/or throughput rate...The tag in the workload request provides a descriptor for classifying and describing a workload type (i.e., tag represents a “primary” signature)).
Regarding claims 16, and 18-20, they comprise limitations similar to claims 1 and 3, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21, WANG further teaches:
the originally specified value corresponds to an original setting for an encoding format and bitrate, and wherein the characterized maximum possible value corresponds to a characterized most computationally intensive formatting for implementation of transcoder functionality ([0004] The fullness level of the VBV Buffer can be modeled over time by comparing a constant input rate tied to an average number of bits per frame with a variable output rate tied to the actual bitrate of the generated bitstream. When the modeled fullness level nears a maximum threshold, the encoder can decrease values of a quantization parameter to increase the bitstream's bitrate (i.e., decreasing values of the quantization parameter to increase bitrate makes the value more computationally intensive than an original setting of quantization parameter and bitrate). Such an increase in the bitstream's bitrate can raise the output rate closer to the constant input rate, and thereby decrease the modeled fullness level).
Regarding claim 23, WANG further teaches:
the characterized maximum possible value of computing device resources is pre-determined ([0045] The fullness level 608 of the VBV Buffer 602 immediately before each new frame 106 is encoded can be weighted most heavily when considering the variation of the VBV Buffer's fullness level 608 over a recent window of frames 106. As such, the fullness level 608 of the VBV Buffer 602 immediately before each new frame 106 can impact selection of the value for its quantization parameter 208 (i.e., the quantization parameter is “pre-determined”, or selected prior to the new frame is encoded)).
Regarding claim 24, WANG further teaches:
the characterized maximum possible value of computing device resources is dynamically calculated ([0045] The fullness level 608 of the VBV Buffer 602 immediately before each new frame 106 is encoded can be weighted most heavily when considering the variation of the VBV Buffer's fullness level 608 over a recent window of frames 106. As such, the fullness level 608 of the VBV Buffer 602 immediately before each new frame 106 can impact selection of the value for its quantization parameter 208 (i.e., a new quantization parameter is calculated for each frame, resulting in a “dynamic calculation”)).
Claims 4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAULKNER, in view of GAO, in view of WANG as applied to claims 1, and 16 above, and in further view of CORLEY Patent No.: US 8,813,245 B1 (hereafter CORLEY).
CORLEY was cited previously
Regarding claim 4, while FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG teach allocation of computing devices, and further teach virtualized environments, FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG does not explicitly teach:
the computing device comprises a virtual computing device;
However, in analogous art that similarly describes a virtualized environment, CORLEY teaches:
the computing device comprises a virtual computing device (Column 4, Lines 54-56: The computing resources can include any resource capable of being used to transcode, or otherwise process content, such as a physical server device, virtual machine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Corley’s teaching of virtual machine computing resources performing transcoding operations on content, with FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG’s teaching of computing resources performing transcoding operations on content in a cloud computing system comprising virtual machines, with a reasonable expectation of success, since they are analogous content transcoding systems that similarly perform transcoding operations using computing resources. Such a combination results in a system that performs transcoding operations on content, as in GAO, using virtual machines, as in CORLEY. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to enable a service provider to charge for usage of virtual resources used in the transcoding service (Corley Column 11, Line 66-Column 12, Line 2).
Regarding claim 14, while FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG teach allocation of computing devices, and further teach virtualized environments, FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG does not explicitly teach:
the set of computing devices includes a virtual machine instance.
However, in analogous art that similarly describes a virtualized environment, CORLEY teaches:
the set of computing devices includes a virtual machine instance (Column 4, Lines 54-56: The computing resources can include any resource capable of being used to transcode, or otherwise process content, such as a physical server device, virtual machine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined CORLEY’s teaching of virtual machine computing resources performing transcoding operations on content, with FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG’s teaching of computing resources performing transcoding operations on content in a cloud computing system comprising virtual machines, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, to realize a system that performs transcoding operations on content, as in GAO, using virtual machines, as in CORLEY. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to enable a service provider to charge for usage of virtual resources used in the transcoding service (CORLEY Column 11, Line 66-Column 12, Line 2).
Regarding claim 15, CORLEY further teaches:
instantiate the virtual machine instance (Column 2, Lines 17-20: A service provider can also provide the computing resources (e.g., servers, virtual machines, etc.) used to process the transcoding jobs from the pipelines (i.e., service provider provides, or “instantiates” virtual machines to process requested transcoding jobs)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAULKNER, in view of GAO, in view of WANG as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of CAO Pub. No.: US 2017/0199752 A1 (hereafter CAO).
CAO was cited previously.
Regarding claim 10, while FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG teach selecting computing devices for execution, FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG does not explicitly teach:
the data store is configured to store further computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to perform further operations including prioritizing the set of computing devices.
However, in analogous art that similarly teaches evaluation of performance metrics of compute resources, CAO teaches:
the data store is configured to store further computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to perform further operations including prioritizing the set of computing devices ([0090], Lines 1-5: Evaluating each VM’s (i.e., “computing devices”) historical performance, exclude those configurations that resulted in unacceptable performance levels, and of those configurations that remain, prioritize those configurations that are the similar to other optimal resource configurations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined CAO’s teaching of prioritizing virtual machine computing resources that meet a minimum performance threshold, with the combination of FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG’s teaching of selecting computing resources to perform transcoding functionality, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that selects computing resources to perform transcoding functionality, as in FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG, by prioritizing the computing resources, as in CAO. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination so that deployment of virtual resources is optimized and automated (Cao [0001], Lines 1-4).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAULKNER, in view of GAO, in view of WANG, as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of YOU Pub. No.: US 2016/0306673 A1 (hereafter YOU).
YOU was cited previously.
Regarding claim 17, while FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG deploy tasks on selected processing nodes, FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG do not explicitly teach:
the first computing device comprises a computing device in the set of computing devices with a lowest quantity of a first computing resource.
However, in analogous art that similarly deploys tasks on selected processing nodes, YOU teaches:
the first computing device comprises a computing device in the set of computing devices with a lowest quantity of a first computing resource ([0032] In an example where a target task has the critical characteristic as the requirement for storage I/O bandwidth, the second critical characteristic as the requirement for memory bandwidth, the third characteristic as the requirement for CPU capacity and the lowest characteristics as the requirement for the network bandwidth, the provisioning apparatus selects from its managed pool of processing nodes all the processing nodes that satisfy the storage I/O bandwidth requirement to generate a first candidate set of processing nodes. Then, the provisioning apparatus selects from the first candidate set the processing nodes that satisfy the memory bandwidth requirement and at the same time have a lowest amount of storage I/O bandwidth to generate a second candidate set of processing nodes. Next, the provisioning apparatus selects from the second candidate set processing nodes that satisfy the CPU requirement and at the same time have the lowest amount of memory bandwidth to generate a third candidate set of processing nodes. Finally, the provisioning apparatus selects from the third candidate set processing nodes that satisfy the requirement of network bandwidth and at the same time have the lowest amount of CPU capacity to generate a final set of processing nodes. When more than one processing nodes are included in the final set of processing nodes, the provisioning apparatus can, for example, randomly select one or more processing nodes, e.g., the second set of processing nodes, from the final set and deploy the target task to the second set of the processing nodes. With this selection of the second set of processing nodes, not only the relatively most demanding critical resource requirements for storage I/O bandwidth and memory bandwidth are satisfied with priority, but also the resources of less demanded CPU and network bandwidth are not wasted, ensuring fast execution of the target task, thereby increasing overall resource usage rate, and decreasing power consumption associated with the execution of the task (i.e., selecting a processing node, representing a “computing device” means selecting a node with at least a lowest amount of CPU capacity, representing a “lowest quantity of a first computing resource”)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined YOU’s teaching of selection of a computing resource having a lowest quantity of CPU capacity, with the combination of FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG’s teaching of selecting a computing resource to perform transcoding functionality, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that selects a computing resource to perform transcoding functionality, as in FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG, having a lowest quantity of a computing resource, as in YOU. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to increase overall resource usage rate, and decreasing power consumption while ensuring fast execution rate and decreasing resource waste (YOU [0032]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAULKNER, in view of GAO, in view of WANG, as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of CHEUNG Pub. No.: US 2020/0068002 A1 (hereafter CHEUNG).
Regarding claim 22, while FAULKNER, GAO and WANG teach increasing a value related to computing resources based on attributes of incoming content, FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG do not explicitly teach:
the originally specified value corresponds to an original setting for at least one of a resolution parameter or a frame rate, and wherein the characterized maximum possible value corresponds to a characterized most computationally intensive formatting for implementation of transcoder functionality.
However, in analogous art, CHEUNG teaches:
the originally specified value corresponds to an original setting for at least one of a resolution parameter or a frame rate, and wherein the characterized maximum possible value corresponds to a characterized most computationally intensive formatting for implementation of transcoder functionality (the video data may specify the resolution of the frames to be displayed (e.g., a minimum resolution, a maximum resolution, a default resolution, and/or the like). The resolution may be modified upon detection of one or more network-related events. For example, when one or more properties of a connection (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, bandwidth, etc.) are below a threshold, the resolution of one or more frames (or the set of frames) may be reduced from a default or maximum resolution to a lower resolution. Conversely, when the one or more properties exceeds the threshold, the resolution may be increased, such as returning to a default or maximum resolution (i.e., resolution is increased to a maximum possible value, which corresponds to a more computationally intensive format, from a default, lower resolution based on attributes related to the content)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined CHEUNG’s teaching of increasing resolution to a maximum based on attributes of the content, with the combination of FAULKNER, GAO, and WANG’s teaching of increasing resource values based on attributes of content, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that increases resource values based on content, as in WANG, which results in increasing resolution to a maximum, as in CHEUNG. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to maintain a constant average resolution across frames, which may improve the quality of the portion of the frame having the user’s attention without increasing encoding time (CHEUNG [0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W AYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6420. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aimee Li can be reached on (571) 272-4169. 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.
/MICHAEL W AYERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195