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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 4, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gopalakrishnan et al. hereinafter “Gopalakrishnan” (US 2016/0316390), in view of Foesrster et al. hereinafter “Foerster” (US 2014/0379835), both references are IDS provided references, in view of Samuel et al. (hereinafter “Samuel” (US 11,785,442), and further in view of Harrang et al. hereinafter “Harrang” (US 2011/0044227).
Regarding claim 1, Gopalakrishnan discloses a system for intelligently caching content, the system comprising:
one or more processors (a processor is disclosed, Gopalakrishnan, [0019]); and
one or more computer-readable media storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (a memory storing instructions executed by a processor is disclosed, Gopalakrishnan, [0019]), cause the one or more processors to:
predict an upcoming time period of congestion for a cell site associated with a first device (forecasting a sample time window of congestion for a base station having a mobile device, Gopalakrishnan, [0044]; [0048]); and communicate instructions to download the content (by using a programs, content being download at a time with no congestion ( running a program for downloading is equated to executing instructions for downloading, Gopalakrishnan, [0059]),
wherein the instructions include the window of time to download the content (by using a programs, content being download at a time with no congestion ( running a program for downloading is equated to executing instructions for downloading, and by downloading of the content at the time when there is less congestion a window of time for downloading the content is including in the instruction), Gopalakrishnan, [0059]).
Gopalakrishnan does not explicitly disclose identify a window of time for pre-cache of content outside of the upcoming time period of congestion.
Foerster discloses identify a window of time for pre-cache of content outside of the upcoming time period of congestion (identify time with high network congestion as well as time with low congestion content and pre-cache the data during the low congestion before receiving the data (or before a presentation), Foerster, [0050]; [0061]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Foerster’s teachings with Gopalakrishnan’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to facilitate the receiving of data by identifying a high network congestion and a low network congestion efficiently by downloading the data when the congestion is low.
Gopalakrishnan in view of Foerster does not disclose wherein identifying the window of time for pre-cache of content is based at least in part on a storage capacity of the first device and an off-peak system capacity for the cell site.
Samuel discloses wherein identifying the window of time for pre-cache of content is based at least in part on a storage capacity of the first device and a system capacity for the cell site (The mobile switch 14 comprises a buffer 16, a cell controller 18, and a home location register (HLR) 20. The cell controller 18 is a high speed general purpose digital computer that is programmed to control the functions required of the mobile switch 14. The HLR 20 is a memory device capable of storing a database under control of the cell controller 18. The database in the HLR 20 includes the profile and authorization information including the priority for each of the remote users. The buffer 16 is a memory device under control of the cell controller 18 that is used to receive and store data for later delivery to a remote user in the cell in accordance with one aspect of the present invention. While the buffer 16 is illustrated as within the mobile switch 14, the buffer could be remotely located, Samuel, page 10, lines 3-14; the pre-cache content is equated to data stored in a memory for later used, where buffer 16 performs the same function of a pre-cache that stores the data and provides the stored data when a request is made in the future for the stored data; the buffer size of an eNodeB is disclosed in column 6, lines 19-22; the store capacity of the first device is equated to the size of the memory of the device where the size of the memory is equated to the capacity of the memory ).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Samuel’s teachings with Gopalakrishnan’s teachings in view of Foerster’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to efficiently deliver a content to a remote device by using a cell control function that controls the storage capacity of the cell and by storing the data of the remote device in a home local register for doing so.
Gopalakrishnan in view of Foerster and further in view of Samuel fails to disclose that the window of time for pre-cache of content is also based specifically on off-peak system capacity for the cell site.
However, Harrang teaches a method and system for broadcasting and caching content using surplus network capacity. Specifically, Harrang teaches determining a transmission window to transmit and cache media content based on identifying surplus network capacity, which is explicitly defined as unused, low-traffic, or off-peak periods at a wireless base station/cell site (see Harrang, Abstract, paragraphs [0041] – [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content delivery system of Gopalakrishnan, Foerster and Samuel to incorporate the off-peak capacity scheduling taught by Harrang. A PHOSITA would be motivated to make this modification because it is routine, well-known resource optimization practice in wireless communications to execute heavy background tasks -such as content pre-caching- during periods of lowest demand (off-peak capacity). Doing so maximizes the utilization of otherwise wasted network bandwidth and minimizes peak-hour congestion without having to increase overall network capacity of the communication network (see Harrang, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Gopalakrishnan, Foerster, Samuel, and Harrang disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the window of time for pre-cache of content includes a start time and a stop time (the window of time of storing before a presentation period is between the time of first request and a first deadline (the first request is the starting time and the fist deadline id the stopping time), Gopalakrishnan, [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Gopalakrishnan, Foerster, Samuel, and Harrang disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the first device is customer premises equipment (CPE) (an API is a customer premises equipment that allows a user to access a service provider, Gopalakrishnan, [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, Gopalakrishnan, Foerster, Samuel, and Harrang disclose the system of claim 3, wherein the first device is a fixed wireless access device (a Set-box Box is disclosed, Gopalakrishnan, [0073]).
Regarding claim 5, Gopalakrishnan, Foerster, Samuel, and Harrang disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the first device is a mobile smartphone (a smartphone is disclosed, Gopalakrishnan, [0018]).
Regarding claim 6 Gopalakrishnan, Foerster, Samuel, and Harrang disclose the system of claim 1, wherein identifying the window of time for pre-cache of content is further based on an off-peak bit cost factor, wherein the off-peak bit cost factor is a difference in cost of sending data between peak and off-peak hours (The key business impact is that the operators will be able to increase the revenue per user by offering new popular content delivery services, without incurring additional network expansion capital expenditures; thus, considering cost of sending data as a factor in scheduling pre-cache operations, see Harrang, paragraph [0054]. Same rationale used in the rejection of claim 1 above applies here.
Regarding claim 7, Gopalakrishnan, Foerster, Samuel, and Harrang disclose the system of claim 1, wherein predicting the upcoming time period of congestion for a cell site further comprises identifying a quality of a radio link between the cell site and the first device ( different wireless access network having different qualities are disclosed (wifi, Bluetooth, TV) , Gopalakrishnan, [0073];[0074]).
Regarding claim 8, Gopalakrishnan, Foerster, Samuel, and Harrang disclose the system of claim 7, wherein based on the quality of the radio link between the cell site and the first device, the processors are further configured to identify an estimated time needed for a download ( estimate time to complete data within time-shift window is disclosed, Gopalakrishnan, [0061]).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 1; thus, the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 2; thus, the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 3; thus, the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 4; thus, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 13, Gopalakrishnan, Foerster, Samuel, and Harrang disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to create a priority list of devices for caching based on efficiency, where caching efficiency comprises an ability to pre-cache content to a device in less time than other devices (If implemented, operators will be able to offer services to deliver selected popular contents to arbitrary number of their customers without impacting their overall network capacity requirements; thus, creating a priority list of users based on pre-caching efficiency, see Harrang, paragraphs [0054]; [0055]). Same rationale used in the rejection of claim 1 above applies here.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7; thus, the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 8; thus, the same rationale applies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emmanuel L Moise whose telephone number is (571)272-3865. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM – 5:00 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, Colleen Fauz can be reached on 571 272-1667. 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.
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
