DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, Applicant's filed response has been entered.
This is a Non-final office action in response to communication received on February 03, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein.
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.
(I) An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 1-20 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements, which are first considered under step 2A prong two when claim(s) is/are reconsidered as a whole and exclusively under step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of assigning content requests to plurality of buckets comprising test profiles with different configurations during evaluation period, wherein based on performance of the test buckets a production bucket is updated which is certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes (but for its implementation in network based environment - which is considered further under prong two and step 2B analysis as set forth below).
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or
legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising,
marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
The phrase "Mental processes" applies to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion - here buckets with different profile configurations are set up as part of an experiment and based on evaluation and judgement of the performance of the experimental buckets, a production bucket is modified). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. A-C.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an "inventive concept").
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-20, for instance at least are transmitting request to a first server and a second server (claim 2), a computing device comprising a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations (claim 10), providing plurality of video streams to plurality of client devices per video streaming parameters (claim 11), modifying video streaming parameters of one profile based on a different profile configuration (claim 12), video streaming parameter and modified video streaming parameter comprising a first video resolution or a first bit rate (claim 13), non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that when executed cause performance of operations, the operations comprising (claim 17). Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(±)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed figures 1-3, 6A, 17-18, and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device merely sending/receiving data over a network, note 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607,610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., 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). Further, the processor analyzes the content request and response times to modify production bucket configuration. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying/adjusting/modifying based on certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to provide personalized marketing content such as ads, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the
functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different
state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of assigning content requests to plurality of buckets comprising
test profiles with different configurations during evaluation period, wherein based on
performance of the test buckets a production bucket is updated which is certain methods of
organizing human activity and mental processes (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 1-20, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of assigning content requests to plurality of buckets comprising test profiles with different configurations during evaluation period, wherein based on performance of the test buckets a production bucket
is updated which is certain methods of organizing human activity which is certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., 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) [similarly here processes are carried out over a network]; and
(ii) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an ''inventive concept." H held that the claims added "only generic computer components such as an 'interface,' 'network,' and 'database,"' and that "recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible." Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or "effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field." Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2359)." [similarly here interface allows configuration of buckets having configuration profiles].
Next, in view of compact prosecution only further analysis per the Berkheimer Memo dated April 19, 2018 is being conducted as the following additional elements would be readily apparent as generic to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), in other words analysis is similar to Berkheimer claim 1 and not claims 4-7 where there was "a genuine issue of material fact in light of the specification," nevertheless the Examiner finds the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination to be well-understood, routine or conventional and expressly supports in writing as follows:
The Examiner provides citation to one or more of the court decisions as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s) as follows:
i. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp's claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims." - [similarly here evaluation metric measures response latency for delivering content which could be video streaming with resolution or bit rate requirements];
ii. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d [similarly here statistics or metrics associated with content requests and responses is gathered]; and
iii. Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 [similarly here statistics or metrics associated with content requests and responses is gathered to set production bucket configuration per a well performing bucket and its associated profile].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
3. 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sachdev et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0373960) referred to hereinafter as Sachdev, in view of Cohen et al. (Pub. No. US2023/0039956) referred to hereinafter as Cohen.
As per claims 1 and 10, Sachdev discloses as per claim 1, a method, comprising:
as per claim 10, computing device comprising: a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations, the operations comprising (see [0012]-[0016]; [0078]-[0080]):
as per claims 1 and 10,
(a) configuring a plurality of buckets comprising: (b) a first bucket associated with a first profile comprising a first configuration that is used to perform processes associated with requests assigned to the first bucket (see [0011] "Client requests that the computer system processes are assigned to buckets, each bucket corresponding to a complexity level and is associated with an expected performance level"; [0019]; [0022]); (c) a second bucket associated with a second profile comprising a second configuration that is used to perform processes associated with requests assigned to the second bucket (see [0011] "Client requests that the computer system processes are assigned to buckets, each bucket corresponding to a complexity level and is associated with an expected performance level" - each bucket is profiled based on its complexity level and expected performance; [0019]; [0022]); and
(d) a third bucket associated with a third profile (see [0011] "Client requests that the computer system processes are assigned to buckets, each bucket corresponding to a complexity level and is associated with an expected performance level"; [0019]; [0022 ]);
(e) […] for evaluating processing performance of request processed according to the first configuration see [0011] "Client requests that the computer system processes are assigned to buckets, each bucket corresponding to a complexity level and is associated with an expected performance level" - each bucket is profiled based on its complexity level and expected performance; [0019]; [0022];
(f) […] for evaluating processing performance of request processed according to the second configuration see [0011] "Client requests that the computer system processes are assigned to buckets, each bucket corresponding to a complexity level and is associated with an expected performance level" - each bucket is profiled based on its complexity level and expected performance; [0019]; [0022];
(g) assigning [... ] a first plurality of content item requests to the first bucket as a first subset of requests of an evaluation period used to determine evaluation metrics as a first subset of requests of an evaluation period used to determine evaluation metrics (see [0030] "each type of request is associated with a different bucket pool. For instance, if a request is of a first type, then the request will be assigned to one of buckets 272-274, while if a request is of a second type, then the request will be assigned to one of buckets 282-286"; [0045]; [0052]; [0056]);
(h) performing first processes associated with the first plurality of content item requests according to the first profile comprising the first configuration and associated with the first bucket (see [0011]; [0018]; [0024]; [0069]-[0070]);
(i) assigning based upon the second target proportion of requests a second plurality of content item requests to the second bucket as a second subset of requests of an evaluation period used to determine evaluation metrics (see [0030] "each type of request is associated with a different bucket pool. For instance, if a request is of a first type, then the request will be assigned to one of buckets 272-274, while if a request is of a second type, then the request will be assigned to one of buckets 282-286"; [0045]);
j) performing second processes associated with the second plurality of content item requests according to the second profile comprising the second configuration and associated with the second bucket (see [0011]; [0018]; [0024]-[0025]; [0028]; [0069]-[0070]);
(k) determining, based upon results of the first processes performed according to the first profile and results of the second processes performed according to the second profile, evaluation metrics associated with the first bucket and the second bucket that are indicative of relative processing performance of the first configuration and the second configuration (see [0067]-[0070]; [0073]-[0075]);
(l) selecting the first bucket based upon the evaluation metrics as exhibiting preferred processing performance relative to the second bucket (see [0054]-[0059]); and
(m) in response to selecting the first bucket, performing a bucket reconfiguration process comprising modifying the third profile associated with the third bucket based upon the first profile associated with the first bucket to have an updated configuration that causes the third bucket to process requests using at least a portion of the first configuration (see [0028]; [0056]-[0059]; [0063]-[0064 ]).
(e*) Sachdev expressly does not teach determining a first target proportion of requests associated with the first bucket […]. Cohen teaches determining a first target proportion of requests associated with the first bucket […] (see [0003] "In accordance with the present disclosure, one or more computing devices and/or methods for implementing a model for serving exploration traffic are provided. A content serving platform is configured to provide content items to client devices for display to users. A plurality of content providers may submit bids through the content serving platform to bid on opportunities to display content items to users. For example, an opportunity may correspond to a website requesting a content item from the content serving platform to display to a user visiting the website. The content serving platform may rank available content items based upon bid values of bids submitted by content providers of the available content items and based upon predictions by a user engagement model of predicted likelihoods of the user engaging with each of the available content items. The content serving platform may maintain the content items as being available for serving non-exploration traffic (e.g., maintained within a non-exploration bucket), which is used by the user engagement model as a repository of available content items to serve for non-exploration traffic based upon bid values and predicted likelihoods of user engagement (e.g., 90% of requests for content items may be deemed as non-exploration traffic, and thus are directed to the non-exploration bucket). The content items are served for non-exploration traffic in a deterministic manner using the user engagement model to rank content items and select one or more highest ranked content items to serve."; [0004] "When content items become newly available to the content serving platform, those content items are treated as exploration content items because the user engagement model has not yet been trained to accurately determine the target audience of users for the content items. Thus, the user engagement model is unable to create accurate predicted likelihoods of user engagement for the exploration content items. In an example, the exploration content items are maintained within an exploration bucket that is separate from the non-exploration bucket. The exploration content items within the exploration bucket are served for exploration traffic (e.g., 10% of requests for content items may be deemed as exploration traffic, and thus are directed to the exploration bucket). User engagement with the exploration content items (e.g., whether a user clicked a content item, whether the user purchased an item based upon viewing a content item, whether the user scrolled past and ignore a content item, etc.) may be tracked and used to train the user engagement model to predict likelihoods of user engagement with the exploration content item. Once sufficiently trained or a threshold number of impressions have occurred for an exploration content item, the exploration content item may be moved from the exploration bucket to the non-exploration bucket as a content item that can be served for non-exploration traffic using the user engagement model. Other various conditions may trigger the exploration item being moved from the exploration bucket to the non-exploration bucket."; [0005]-[0007]; [0060]-[0061])
(f*) Sachdev expressly does not teach determining a second target proportion of requests associated with the second bucket. Cohen teaches determining a second target proportion of[AltContent: ] requests associated with the second bucket (see [0003]-[0007]; [0060]-[006 l]);
[AltContent: ](g*) Sachdev expressly does not teach [... ] , based upon the first target proportion of requests,
[... ].Cohen teaches[... ], based upon the first target proportion of requests, [... ](see [0003]-[0007]; [0060]-[0061]).
Therefore (as it applies to (e)-(g*)) it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the
effective filling date of the invention to modify Sachdev in view of Cohen with motivation to further define the proportion of requests that would be assigned to exploration bucket such that user likelihood of new content can also be predicted, see at least Cohen [0003]-[0007].
2. Sachdev in view of Cohen teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Sachdev teaches wherein: the first profile is indicative of a first timeout value;
a process of the first processes comprises transmitting a first content item request of the first
plurality of content item requests to a first content item server, wherein the first content item request is indicative of the first timeout value; the second profile is indicative of a second timeout value; and a process of the second processes comprises transmitting a second content item request of the second plurality of content item requests to a second content item server, wherein the second content item request is indicative of the second timeout value (see [0022]). Sachdev in view of
3. Cohen teaches the claim limitations of claim 2. Sachdev teaches wherein: modifying the third profile based upon the first profile comprises modifying, based upon the first timeout value indicated by the first profile, a
third timeout value indicated by the third profile to a modified timeout value (see [0028]; [0055]-[0056]; [0063]).
4. Sachdev in view of Cohen teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Sachdev teaches wherein: the third bucket is a production bucket; the evaluation metrics comprise at least one network performance metric selected from a response latency or a success rate of content item requests; and the first profile defines a network communication para meter for the content requests, and modifying the third profile to adopt a parameter of the first profile automatically updates a timeout setting of the production bucket without manual intervention, thereby reducing request latency and improving throughput of a content delivery system (see the rejection as set forth below for claim 17 limitations G), (k), and additionally see [0052] and [0056] as they teach evaluation period and automatically modifying by merging).
5. Sachdev in view of Cohen teaches the claim limitations of claim 3. Sachdev teaches comprising: after modifying the third profile based upon the first profile, at least two of: assigning a fourth plurality of content item requests to the first bucket and performing fourth processes associated with the fourth plurality of content item requests according to the first timeout value indicated by the first profile associated with the first bucket; assigning a fifth plurality of content item requests to the second bucket and performing fifth processes associated with the fifth plurality of content item requests according to the second timeout value indicated by the second profile associated with the second bucket; or assigning a sixth plurality of content item requests to the third bucket and performing sixth processes associated with the sixth plurality of content item requests according to the modified timeout value indicated by the third profile associated with the third bucket (see [00 l 9]-[0022]; [0024]-[0025]).
6. Sachdev in view of Cohen teaches the claim limitations of claim 3. Sachdev teaches comprising: after modifying the third profile based upon the first profile: determining second evaluation metrics associated with the second bucket and at least one of the first bucket or the third bucket based upon the fifth processes and at least one of: the fourth processes; or the sixth processes; selecting the second bucket based upon the second evaluation metrics; and in response to selecting the second bucket, modifying, based upon the second timeout value indicated by the second profile, the modified timeout value to a second modified timeout value (see [0055]-[0059]; [0063]-[0064]).
7. Sachdev in view of Cohen teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Sachdev teaches wherein the evaluation metrics comprise at least one of: a first response latency metric associated with reception of one or more responses to one or more content item re quests of the first plurality of content item requests; a first measure of responses associated with the first plurality of content item requests; a second response latency metric associated with reception of one or
more responses to one or more content item requests of the second plurality of content item requests; or a second measure of responses associated with the second plurality of content item requests (see [0065]).
8. Sachdev in view of Cohen teaches the claim limitations of claim 7. Sachdev teaches comprising: determining a first score associated with the first bucket based upon at least one of the first response latency metric or the first measure of responses; and determining a second score associated with the second bucket based upon at least one of the second response latency metric or the second measure of responses, wherein the first bucket is selected based upon the first score exceeding the second score (see [0019]-[0020]).
9 and 16. Sachdev in view of Cohen teaches the claim limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively. Sachdev teaches wherein: configuring the plurality of buckets comprises: configuring the first bucket with a first target proportion of requests; and configuring the second bucket with a second target proportion of requests; assigning the first plurality of content item requests to the first bucket is performed according to the first target proportion of requests; and assigning the second plurality of content item requests to the second bucket is performed according to the second target proportion of requests (see [0022]).
17. Sachdev in view of Cohen teaches a non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that when executed cause performance of operations, the operations comprising (see [0080]; [0084]): configuring a plurality of buckets comprising: a first bucket associated with a first profile that is used to perform processes associated with requests assigned to the first bucket; and a second bucket associated with a second profile that is used to perform processes associated with requests assigned to the second bucket (see the rejection as set forth above for claim limitations (a)-(c)); determining a first target proportion of requests associated with the first bucket for evaluating processing performance of requests processed according to the first profile (see the rejection as set forth above for claim limitation (e)); determining a second target proportion of requests associated with the second bucket, for evaluating processing performance of requests processed according to the second profile (see the rejection as set forth above for claim limitation (f)); assigning, based upon the first target proportion of request, a first plurality of processes of a first evaluation period to the first bucket (see the rejection as set forth above for claim limitation (g); additionally see [0052] and [0056] as they teach evaluation period); performing the first plurality of processes according to the first profile associated with the first bucket (see the rejection as set forth above for claim limitation (h)); assigning, based upon the second target proportion of requests, a second plurality of processes of the first evaluation period to the second bucket (see the rejection as set forth above for claim limitation (i); additionally see [0052] and [0056] as they teach evaluation period);
performing the second plurality of processes according to the second profile associated with the second bucket that are indicative of relative processing performance of the first profile and the second profile (see the rejection as set forth above for claim limitation (h));
determining, based upon results of the first plurality of processes performed according to the first profile and results of the second plurality of processes performed according to the second profile evaluation metrics associated with the first bucket and the second bucket (see the rejection as set forth above for claim limitation (h)); and
based upon the evaluation metrics, selecting the first bucket as exhibiting preferred processing performance relative to the second bucket and to be a production bucket during a second evaluation period following the first evaluation period (see the rejection as set forth above for claim limitations G), (k), and additionally see [0052] and [0056] as they teach evaluation period).
18. Sachdev in view of Cohen teaches the claim limitations of claim 17. Sachdev teaches wherein: configuring the plurality of buckets is performed using a bucket configuration indicative of: a first target proportion of processes for the production bucket of the plurality of buckets; and one or more second target proportions of processes for one or more buckets, of the plurality of buckets, other than the production bucket; and the operations comprise: assigning, according to the first target proportion of processes, a third plurality of processes of the second evaluation period to the first bucket; performing the third plurality of processes according to the first profile associated with the first bucket; assigning, according to a target proportion of the one or more second target proportions of processes, a fourth plurality of processes of the second evaluation period to the second bucket; performing the fourth plurality of processes according to the second profile associated with the second bucket; determining, based upon the third plurality of processes and the fourth plurality of processes, second evaluation metrics associated with the first bucket and the second bucket; and based upon the second evaluation metrics, selecting the second bucket to be the production bucket during a third evaluation period following the second evaluation period (see the rejection as set forth above for claims 9, 16, and additionally see [0052] and [0056] as they teach evaluation period).
19. Sachdev in view of Cohen teaches the claim limitations of claim 18. Sachdev teaches the operations comprising: assigning, according to a target proportion of the one or more second target proportions of processes, a fifth plurality of processes of the third evaluation period to the first bucket; performing the fifth plurality of processes according to the first profile associated with the first bucket assigning, according to the first target proportion of processes, a sixth plurality of processes of the third evaluation period to the second bucket; performing the sixth plurality of processes according to the second profile associated with the second bucket (see the rejection as set forth above for claim limitations G), (k), and additionally see [0052] and [0056] as they teach evaluation period); determining, based upon the fifth plurality of processes and the sixth plurality of processes, third evaluation metrics associated with the first bucket and the second bucket; and based upon the third evaluation metrics, selecting the second bucket to be the production bucket during a fourth evaluation period following the third evaluation period (see the rejection as set forth above for claim limitations G), (k)).
4. Claims 11-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sachdev, in view of Cohen and Fu (Pub. No.: US2024/0163180).
As per claim 11, Sachdev in view of Cohen teaches the claim limitations of claim 10. Sachdev teaches wherein: the first profile is indicative of[ ... content]; a process of the first plurality of processes comprises providing[... content] to a first client device according to[ ... content]; the second profile is indicative of[ ... content]; and a process of the second plurality of processes comprises providing[ ... ] to a second client device according to[ ... ] (see [0018]; [0068]-[007 l ]).
Sachdev in view of Cohen expressly does not teach [... ] one or more first video streaming parameters [... ] a first video stream [... ] the one or more first video streaming parameters [... ] one or more second video streaming parameters [... ] a second video stream [... ] the one or more second video streaming parameters. Fu teaches [... ] one or more first video streaming parameters [... ] a first video stream [... ] the one or more first video streaming parameters [... ] one or more second video streaming parameters [... ] a second video stream [... ] the one or more second video streaming parameters (see [0003]; [0020]; [0024]; [0030]; [0093 ]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of
the invention to modify Sachdev in view of Fu to test video streaming based on different parameters by transmitting to a wide range of devices to test and fix bugs to provide higher quality of service to users, see Fu [0003] and [0020].
12. Sachdev in view of Cohen and Fu teaches the claim limitations of claim 11. Sachdev teaches wherein: modifying the third profile based upon the first profile comprises modifying, based upon[...] indicated by the first profile, [... ]indicated by the third profile to[ ... ] (see [0028]; [0055]-[0056]; [0063]-[0064]).
Sachdev in view of Cohen expressly does not teach [... ] the one or more first video streaming parameters [... ] one or more third video streaming parameters [... ] one or more modified video streaming parameters. Fu teaches [... ] the one or more first video streaming parameters [... ] one or more third video streaming parameters [... ] one or more modified video streaming parameters (see [0003]; [0020]; [0024]; [0030]; [0093]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Sachdev in view of Fu to test video streaming based on different parameters by transmitting to a wide range of devices to test and fix bugs to provide higher quality of service to users, see Fu [0003] and [0020].
13. Sachdev in view of Cohen and Fu teaches the claim limitations of claim 12. Sachdev in view of Cohen expressly does not teach wherein: the one or more first video streaming parameters comprise at least one of a first video resolution or a first bit rate; and the one or more modified video streaming parameters comprise at least one of a video resolution equal to the first video resolution or a bit rate equal to the first bit rate. Fu teaches wherein: the one or more first video streaming parameters comprise at least one of a first video resolution or a first bit rate; and the one or more modified video streaming parameters comprise at least one of a video resolution equal to the first video resolution or a bit rate equal to the first bit rate (see [0024]; [0041]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Sachdev in view of Fu to test video streaming based on different parameters by transmitting to a wide range of devices to test and fix bugs to provide higher quality of service to users, see Fu [0003] and [0020].
14. Sachdev in view of Cohen and Fu teaches the claim limitations of claim 12. Sachdev teaches the operations comprising: after modifying the third profile based upon the first profile, at least two of: assigning a fourth plurality of processes to the first bucket and performing the fourth plurality of processes according to the one or more first [... ] parameters indicated by the first profile associated with the first bucket; assigning a fifth plurality of processes to the second bucket and performing the fifth plurality of processes according to the one or more second [... ] parameters indicated by the second profile associated with the second bucket; or assigning a sixth plurality of processes to the third bucket and performing the sixth plurality of processes according to the one or more modified [... ] parameters indicated by the third profile associated with the third bucket (see the rejection as set forth above for claim 5).
Sachdev in view of Cohen expressly does not teach[ ...] video streaming[...] video streaming [... ] video streaming [... ]. Fu teaches [... ] video streaming [...] video streaming [... ] video streaming[ ... ] (see [0003]; [0020]; [0024]; [0030]; [0093]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Sachdev in view of Fu to test video streaming based on different parameters by transmitting to a wide range of devices to test and fix bugs to provide higher quality of service to users, see Fu [0003] and [0020].
15. Sachdev in view of Cohen and Fu teaches the claim limitations of claim 14. Sachdev teaches the operations comprising: after modifying the third profile based upon the first profile: determining, second evaluation metrics associated with the second bucket and at least one of the first bucket or the third bucket based upon the fifth plurality of processes and at least one of: the fourth plurality of processes; or the sixth plurality of processes; selecting the second bucket based upon the second evaluation metrics; and in response to selecting the second bucket, modifying, based upon the one or more second [... ] parameters indicated by the second profile, the one or more modified [... ] parameters to one or more second modified [... ] parameters (see the rejection as set forth above for claim 6).
Sachdev in view of Cohen expressly does not teach[ ...] video streaming[ ... ] video streaming [... ] video streaming [... ]. Fu teaches [... ] video streaming [... ] video streaming [... ]
video streaming[ ... ] (see [0003]; [0020]; [0024]; [0030]; [0093]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Sachdev in view of Fu to test video streaming based on different parameters by transmitting to a wide range of devices to test and fix bugs to provide higher quality of service to users, see Fu [0003] and [0020].
20. Sachdev in view of Cohen teaches the claim limitations of claim 18. Sachdev teaches wherein: the first profile is indicative of one or more first [... ] parameters; a process of the first plurality of processes comprises providing a first [... ] to a first client device according to the one or more first [... ] parameters; the second profile is indicative of one or more second [... ] parameters; and a process of the second plurality of processes comprises providing a second [... ] to a second client device according to the one or more second [... ] parameters (see the rejection as set forth above for claim 11).
Sachdev in view of Cohen expressly does not teach[ ...] video streaming[ ... ] video
stream [... ] video streaming [... ] video streaming [... ] video stream [... ] video streaming [... ]. Fu teaches [... ] video streaming [... ] video stream [... ] video streaming [... ] video streaming [... ]video stream[... ] video streaming[ ... ] (see the rejection as set forth above for claim 11).
Response to Applicant's Remarks
5. As per 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant, once again, is requested to present full arguments on the record as to why the claims overcome 35 USC 101 based on 2019 PEG based analysis. Upon considering the claims as a whole, and particularly further defining the certain amount or proportion of request is allotted to each bucket during an evaluation period to conduct an experiment and based on the results selecting a bucket and tuning one or more other bucket(s) is still an abstract concept based on abstract recitation analysis which falls under prong one as it further defines how to organize data which is to be processed and evaluated based on evaluation metrics.
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims are directed to an abstract idea (based on prong one and prong two analysis) without significantly more (upon evaluation of additional element(s) per step 2B).
As per prior art, the Applicant is reminded of 37 CFR 1.111(b), which, at least in part notes “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references […] A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.”
The claim rejection has been updated in view of filed claim amendments and indeed Sachdev in view of Cohen teaches the claim as amended.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and all the references on PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited should be duly noted by the Applicant as they can be subsequently used during prosecution, at least note the following:
*Previously noted
-Pub. No.: US2017/0323327 see [0019] "In one implementation, a particular test corpus may be compared against a broader control corpus for identification of trends with respect to one or more global metrics. For example, an advertiser may focus on a test group comprising watchers of a particular television program and compare this with a control group comprising watchers of television in general. Correlations of test group activities, documents, data, and/or the like with the global metric may then be compared with correlations for the same information of the control group in order to determine the relative efficacy of focusing advertisements on the test group. In another implementation, a test group and control group may comprise the same group at different times."; [0046] "The effect of a marketing campaign on a subset of users (referred to as the "target group") TcU may then be determined (note, it may be assumed without loss of generality that T corresponds to one of the subsets G.sub.i in the library) 425. In one implementation, measurements are obtained on the activity of this subset at different points in time 430, which are denoted by Y.sub.t.sup.T. For example, in one implementation, the measured activity may comprise the number of times a user performs a certain action, such as posting about a particular topic, product, brand, company, groups of the same, and/ or the like on one or more social media sites and/or in one or more social media feeds."; [0061] note "shows aspects of user interface illustrating campaign impact and synthetic control in one embodiment of SCG operation. A plot of metric (social media intensity) versus time for a particular brand across a target group (festival goers) is shown at 601. Parameters of the displayed data, including the brand, target group, and time period are shown at 603. In one implementation, the display may include an overall campaign impact assessment, such as may be integrated over time, include a score reflecting the net change in the metric resulting from the campaign, and/or the like 605. The display may further include a time-resolved plot of the metric 610, including a designated campaign impact period 615, and an illustration of the synthetic counterfactual 620 and campaign impact (e.g., difference between the measured metric values and values generated according to the synthetic control)."; [0100] "The features and embodiments of the SCG discussed herein increase network efficiency by reducing data transfer requirements the use of more efficient data structures and mechanisms for their transfer and storage. As a consequence, more data may be transferred in less time, and latencies with regard to transactions, are also reduced. In many cases, such reduction in storage, transfer time, bandwidth requirements, latencies, etc., will reduce the capacity and structural infrastructure requirements to support the SCG's features and facilities, and in many cases reduce the costs, energy consumption/requirements, and extend the life of SCG's underlying infrastructure; this has the added benefit of making the SCG more reliable.
- Pub. No.: US2018/0288034 see Abstract "online system provides content item values for content items to be displayed via publisher servers on client devices of users. For example, the content items include text, images, or video for display on user interfaces such as webpages. The online system may compete with other third party systems that also provide content items for display via the publisher servers. To reduce latency between requests and responses by the online system, the online system may pre-determine a candidate content item value before an opportunity occurs to display a content item. The online system may associate candidate content item values with tokens provided to client devices. Additionally, the online system may use different types of content item value predictors that provide a range of content item values and that require varying amounts of latency to determine the content item values"
- USl 1226931B2 see Abstract "present teaching generally relates to detecting providing pre-validated data buckets for online experiments. In a non-limiting embodiment, user activity data representing user activity for a first plurality of user identifiers may be obtained. A first set of values and a second values, representing first and second user engagement parameters, respectively, may be generated for each user identifier based on the user activity data. A first ranking and a second ranking may be determined for the first and second sets, respectively. A first exclusion range including a first number of values to be removed from the first and second sets may be determined. A homogenous value set may be generated by removing the first number of values from the first and second sets, where each value from the homogenous value set corresponds to a user identifier available to be placed in a data bucket for an online experiment"
- US2019/0057108 see Abstract "present teaching generally relates to detecting providing pre-validated data buckets for online experiments. In a non-limiting embodiment, user activity data representing user activity for a first plurality of user identifiers may be obtained. A first set of values and a second values, representing first and second user engagement parameters, respectively, may be generated for each user identifier based on the user activity data. A first ranking and a second ranking may be determined for the first and second sets, respectively. A first exclusion range including a first number of values to be removed from the first and second sets may be determined. A homogenous value set may be generated by removing the first number of values from the first and second sets, where each value from the homogenous value set corresponds to a user identifier available to be placed in a data bucket for an online experiment
- US20230042408 see Abstract "embodiments describe methods, systems, and devices for reducing the duplication of live media content stored by a computing device for later deployment as a time-shifted playback. A content request for a time-shifted playback of live media content may be received from a client computing device. A record of the content request may be created, wherein the record includes completion data for object files corresponding to segments of the live media content stored separately from the record. The completion data, unique to the content request, may enable playback of the time-shifted playback. The time-shifted playback may be compiled from the object files received from an object store and the completion data. The compiled time-shifted playback is unique to the content request as compared to compilations for other content requests. Access for the client computing device may be enabled to an assigned private path” Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIPEN M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 08:30-17:00 EST.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571)270-3948. 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.
/DIPEN M PATEL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621