Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed 10/8/2025, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following issues.
(A) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112
Issue: The applicant argues with respect to independent claims such as claim 1 that the amended limitations overcome the current 112 rejection.
This argument is moot in light of the new ground of 112 rejection set forth below.
(B) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Issue: The applicant argues with respect to independent claims such as claim 1 that the amended limitations overcome the current rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. See Examiner’s response in the corresponding rejection section below. It is to be noted that Examiner’s rejection is based on her broadest reasonable interpretation stated in the 112 rejection section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The amended Claim 1 recites “the response comprises a first HTTP status code and a response referencing one or more of the variables and events”. The scope of “the variables and events” cannot be definitely determined, because there are no “variables and events” recited in preceding limitations. The preceding limitations only recite “the variables and events configurations”, therefore it is unclear whether and how the latter recited “the variables and events” refer to the variables and events related to the variable and events configurations. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any variables and events. Claims 4-11, and 14-20 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. 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 35 U.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.
9. Claims 1, 4-9, 11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (US 2020/0304508) in view of Gao et al (US 2022/0101438).
As to claim 1, Bae discloses a method performed by at least one processor that implements a network-based media processing (NBMP) workflow manager, the method comprising:
requesting a media processing entity (MPE) to implement a scheme by a request defined
in a task configuration of an NBMP MPE application programming interface (API) ([0080], “Table 6 shows the task configuration API. The workflow manager may configure media processing entities using the task configuration AP”; see Tables 6, “CreateTask” API, “Description: Provision to run a task inside the media processing entity”; Request Parameters: Representation of task resource defined above”; Response Parameters: Acknowledgement of creating a task resource Task Resource Id Endpoint Information where to send media data, metadata and other information for processing”, wherein the cited Table 6 also shows “DeleteTask” API: Description: Request to de-provision the task running inside the media processing entity and terminate the media); and
receiving, from the MPE, a response dependent on whether the request is successful or failed (Table 6, for “CreateTask” API, Response Parameters: Acknowledgement of creating a task resource Task Resource Id Endpoint Information where to send media data, metadata and other information for processing”); and
controlling the MPE based on the response (Table 6, for “CreateTask” API, Response Parameters: Acknowledgement of creating a task resource Task Resource Id Endpoint Information where to send media data, metadata and other information for processing”),
wherein the request requests any of:
providing the MPE with variables and events configurations for monitoring, reporting, and notifications ([0080], “Table 6 shows the task configuration API. The workflow manager may configure media processing entities using the task configuration API”; see Tables 6, “CreateTask” API, “Description: Provision to run a task inside the media processing entity”; Request Parameters: Representation of task resource defined above”; Response Parameters: Acknowledgement of creating a task resource Task Resource Id Endpoint Information where to send media data, metadata and other information for processing”; See Table 6, “UpdateTask…”, “DeleteTask” API: Description: Request to de-provision the task running inside the media processing entity and terminate the media”; see [0079] and Table 5 for task resources, such as “Monitoring: Property representing the monitoring descriptor as defined”, “Reporting: property representing the reporting descriptor as defined”, and “Notification: Property representing the notification descriptor as defined), and
deletion of at least one of a monitoring notification scheme of the MPE and a reporting notification scheme of the MPE (Table 6, “DeleteTask” API: Description: Request to de-provision the task running inside the media processing entity and terminate the media”; “Request Parameter: Task Resource Id”, wherein the Task Resource can be one of the task resources listed in Table 5, such as “Monitoring: Property representing the monitoring descriptor as defined”, “Reporting: property representing the reporting descriptor as defined”, and “Notification: Property representing the notification descriptor as defined),
wherein in response to the request requesting providing the MPE with the variables and the events configurations for monitoring, reporting, and notifications and the request being successful, the response comprises a first status code and a response body referencing one or more of the variables and events (See 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretations therein. See Table 6, “Acknowledgement of updating task resource” is a first status code, and the “updating task resource. Updated information wherein to send media data, metadata, and other information for processing” indicates the variables and events),
wherein in response to the request requesting deletion of the at least one of the monitoring notification scheme of the MPE and the reporting notification scheme of the MPE and the request being successful, the response comprises the first status code and a response body (Table 6, “DeleteTask” API”, “Response Parameters: Acknowledgement of reception and Status of de-configuration request” wherein the Acknowledgement indicate a first status, and the Status of de-configuration request” is a response body), and
But does not expressly disclose that the first status is a first HTTP status code, or that in response to the request requesting providing the MPE with the variables and the events configurations for monitoring, reporting, and notifications and the request having failed, the response comprises at least one of second HTTP status codes, or that in response to the request requesting deletion of the at least one of the monitoring notification scheme of the MPE and the reporting notification scheme of the MPE and the request having failed, the response comprises the at least one of second HTTP status codes. Gao discloses an API return a first HTTP status code if the API request is successful or a second HTTP status code if the API request fails ([0389]-[0391]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Bae with Gao. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to utilize known HTTP status codes (Gao, [0389]-[0391]).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 4, Bae-Gao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the request requests deletion of the at least one of the monitoring notification scheme of the MPE and the reporting notification scheme of the MPE (Bae, see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Table 6, “DeleteTask” API: Description: Request to de-provision the task running inside the media processing entity and terminate the media”; “Request Parameter: Task Resource Id”, wherein the Task Resource can be one of the task resources listed in Table 5, such as “Monitoring: Property representing the monitoring descriptor as defined”, “Reporting: property representing the reporting descriptor as defined”, and “Notification: Property representing the notification descriptor as defined”).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 5, Bae-Gao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the request requests providing the MPE with the variables and the events configurations for monitoring, reporting, and notifications (Bae, see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., 0080], “Table 6 shows the task configuration API. The workflow manager may configure media processing entities using the task configuration API”; see Tables 6, “CreateTask” API, “Description: Provision to run a task inside the media processing entity”; Request Parameters: Representation of task resource defined above”; Response Parameters: Acknowledgement of creating a task resource Task Resource Id Endpoint Information where to send media data, metadata and other information for processing”; See Table 6, “UpdateTask…”, “DeleteTask” API: Description: Request to de-provision the task running inside the media processing entity and terminate the media”; see [0079] and Table 5 for task resources, such as “Monitoring: Property representing the monitoring descriptor as defined”, “Reporting: property representing the reporting descriptor as defined”, and “Notification: Property representing the notification descriptor as defined).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Bae-Gao discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising requesting the MPE to implement the scheme by a second request (See Table 6, “UpdateTask” API).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Bae-Gao discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the second request requests an update in the response to the request requesting providing the MPE with the variables and the events configurations for monitoring, reporting, and notifications and being successful (See Bae, Table 6, “UpdateTask” API, “Description: Modify the task running inside the media processing entity”).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Bae-Gao discloses the method of claim 5, wherein a MPE capabilities description (MD) comprises descriptors: scheme descriptor, general descriptor, capabilities descriptor, variables descriptor, and events descriptor (Bae, Table 2, “Workflow-description” equivalent to scheme descriptor; Table 1, “General descriptors” indicating general descriptor; Table 17 and [0095], “client assistance descriptor” indicating capabilities descriptor; Table 15 and [0093], “configuration descriptor” defining parameters is equivalent to variables descriptor; Table 18 and [0096], Failover is a type of event therefore the Failover descriptor is an event descriptor).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 9, Bae-Gao discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the variables descriptor comprises MPE implementation-specific variables not included in the capabilities descriptor (see citation in rejection to claim 8 above, wherein the configuration descriptor includes implementation-specific parameters not included in the client assistance descriptor).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 9.
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae-Gao, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Takabayashi et al (US 20240054009 A1.
As to claim 10, Bae-Gao discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 8, but does not expressly disclose receiving, from the MPE, a response to a retrieval request to retrieve the MPE capabilities, wherein the response includes a version of the MPE Capabilities Description. Takabayashi discloses receiving, from an MPE, a response to a retrieval operation request to retrieve MPE capabilities, wherein the response includes a version of an MPE Capabilities Description ([0094], “In the NBMP, the workflow management service 51 which is the WorkFlow Manager can acquire the capability of each server 52 by issuing HTTP GET RetrieveCapabilities with an MPE Capabilities Description Document attached to a request body to each server 52 which is an MPE”; [0095], “RetrieveCapabilities is an MPE API, and the MPE Capabilities Description includes respective Descriptors of General, Capabilities, and Events. The id of the General Descriptor in the MPE Capabilities Description is matched with the id of the server 52 that is the MPE from which the capability is to be acquired”; [0095], “In a case where HTTP GET RetrieveCapabilities is successful, an MPE Capabilities Description Document in which actual capabilities are described in a Capabilities descriptor is returned as a response”. See also [0096]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Bae-Gao with Takabayashi. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to retrieve and utilize capabilities of the MPEs (Takabayashi, [0094]]-[00096]).
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA FAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights