DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-27 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection discussed below.
Applicant argues Ample support for the amendments to the independent claims may be found in at least paragraph [0079] (“the data processing requests are requests to process respective portions of data and may include, but are not limited to, respective discrete data elements to be processed.” (page 7).
In response, Examiner notices that, as pointed out by the Applicant, paragraph [0079] describes “the data processing requests are requests to process respective portions of data and may include, but are not limited to, respective discrete data elements to be processed.” However, “a portions of data with respective discrete data elements to be processed” described in paragraph [0079] could be just a portion of at least one request but does not necessarily “at least one data processing request…” as recited in amended claims 1, 14, 15. Therefore, paragraph [0079] or the entire originally-filed specification does not have support for newly added limitation “wherein the portion of the plurality of data processing requests is at least one data processing request among the plurality of data processing requests”.
Applicant also argues that, for the regions noted previously, Applicant submits that Applegate does not teach sending or pulling requests. In no way does Applegate Fig. 1, show requests being sent or pulled between VHOs. Applegate does not teach or suggest that the requests sent by the user are sent to a buffer as claimed, let alone specifically a buffer that is a region of memory stored in a second system. Thus, the requests mentioned in paragraph 32 of Applegate also does not read on the claimed features related to request. Consequentially, teaching sending videos between VHOs like in paragraph 32 of Applegate is not the same as sending data processing requests from a first system to a second system. Thomas does not teach these missing feature (pages 9-10). This argument is respectfully traversed.
For the repeated previous argument, the argument is not persuasive as already addressed in the previous office action. In particular, MPEP 2111 also states “The court explained that "reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim." MPEP 2111 also states “the words of a claim must be given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.
In this case, the claims does not recite “the data processing request are requests to process respective portion of data and include, a respective discrete data elements to be processed,…” nor “the buffer is a region of memory used to temporarily store data…” Instead, claim 1 (also claim 14, 15) merely recites “data processing requests” “a buffer”.
In addition, the “plain meaning” for “data processing requests”, “buffer” as interpreted in the rejection are not inconsistent with the Specification.
Therefore, the claim limitations including “requests”, “buffer” are “given their broadest reasonable interpretation” and/or plain meaning according to MPEP 2111.
Applegate discloses each VHO receives and satisfies all the requests from users in its metro area 104 (para. 0032). The requests (history of requests) are tracked (request log) and used for distributing video based on the requests (see include, but are not limited to, figures 4, 16, paragraphs 0067, 0078, 0085, 0109, 0115, 0132). Majority of requests originate from larger VHOs and some of the medium VHOs (para. 0097). The library size and request load are varied in order to investigate how the system resource requirement varies according… (para. 0099). Thus, the requests (history requests) must be pulled from a location such as request log or other location for tracking or counting the requests/history of requests so that “requests originate from larger VHO, some of medium VHO” or request log are used to determine and provide content based on the history/previous requests.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Applegate is relied on for teaching sending a plurality of data processing requests to location in a second system, and pulling a portion of the plurality of data processing requests from the location. However, Applegate does not disclose the location is a buffer is a region of memory, and pulling a portion of the request by the first system. Thus, the rejection does not rely on Applegate for the teaching of sending request to a buffer, wherein a buffer is a region of memory and pulling, by first system, a portion of the data processing request from the buffer. Instead, Thomas is relied on for the teaching of sending, by a first system, request to a buffer, wherein the buffer is a region of memory and pulling, by the first system request from the buffer, wherein the portion of the plurality of data processing requests is at least one data processing request among the plurality of data processing requests as discussed below.
With respect to argument that none of the 9 mentions of “cache” in Thomas suggest storing requests in a cache. The amended claims clarify that at least one request is pulled as a portion of the requests. Since Thomas does not teach pulling a request (and the office action only assets that Thomas teaches pully a portion of a request, not a request itself), Applicant submits that Thomas fails to teach these features event assuming that the office action’s interpretation as pulling portion of a request is accurate (page 10). This argument is respectfully traversed.
Firstly, as discussed above, paragraph [0079] as pointed out in the Applicant’s remarks, does not have support for newly added limitation “wherein the portion of the plurality of data processing requests is at least one data processing request among the plurality of data processing requests;”.
In addition, the teaching of sending request from first system to second system and pulling a portion of the request is already taught by Applegate as discussed in the previous rejection.
Moreover, Thomas discloses sending, by a first system such as user devices/equipment, requests (e.g., requests, communications, commands, or settings for user preferences, requests for reminders, requests for recording, etc.) to a buffer/cache/log, wherein a buffer is a region of memory for use to store data, timestamps, program name, etc. associated with requests/settings, etc. in a second system such as server, distribution facility, etc.; - see include, but are not limited to, Thomas, figures 3-5, 7, 9; Ellis (20030149988): figures 4-5, 18a, 18d, 18f; Ellis (8046801): figures 2C, 2D, 11, 14, 16-19, 27, 38, col. 8, lines 10-34, col. 13, line 61-67, col. 18, lines 31-67, col. 20, lines 35-61; Ellis (20020174430 (referred to as E430): figures 6, 21-23, 25-26, 34, 43, 46, 57-58, 68-69, 93-97, 101);
pulling or retrieving, by the first system with user device(s), portion of the plurality of data processing requests from the buffer stored in the second system, wherein the portion of the plurality of data processing requests is at least one data processing request among the plurality of data processing requests (pulling or retrieving a portion such as program name, title, subscription, time, reminder setting, recording setting, etc. of the requests/settings sent by user device previously from the buffer/cache in the server/distribution facility for viewing list of programing recording, modifying, etc. conflicting, etc., where the data of the requests of recording, reminder, etc. are stored to determine whether the number of stored/cached requests exceeds a threshold streams or to provide the requested video streams, whether it is time for the reminder, time for recording, etc. of previous stored settings/requests, etc. is approached or whether the previous recording request was performed/scheduled recording program is recorded, etc., the portion of the plurality of data processing requests for reminder, scheduled recording, playing back, etc. comprises at least one request of schedule recording, reminder, viewing among a plurality of requests (see include, but are not limited to, Thomas: figures 3-5, 7, 9, paragraphs 0089, 0101, 0104, 0119-0126, 0133-0134, 0137-0139, 0143-0144, 0180, 0182, 0194, 0197; Ellis: figures 4-5, 18a, 18d, 18f; Ellis (US 8046801-referred to as E801: figures 2C, 2D, 11, 14, 16-19, 27, 38, col. 8, lines 10-34, col. 13, line 61-67, col. 18, lines 31-67, col. 20, lines 35-61; E430): figures 6, 21-23, 25-26, 34, 43, 46, 57-58, 68-69, 93-97, 101).
Thus, Thomas’ disclosures (with its fully incorporated by references) of sending/transferring, by a first system with user device(s), a plurality of data processing requests/communications/commands to a buffer/cache, wherein the buffer is a region of memory/storage stored at the system such as server and/or distribution facility, etc., wherein the plurality of data processing requests for scheduled recording, reminder, playing back, etc. includes a plurality of data elements such as title, time, etc. to be processed, is read on “sending, by a first system, a plurality of data processing requests to a buffer, wherein the buffer is a region of memory stored in the second system, wherein the second system is remote from the first system, wherein the plurality of data processing requests include a plurality of data elements to be processed);
the disclosure of retrieving or polling/pulling, by the first system with user device(s) of the data associated with settings, timestamps, program information in recording directory, recording schedule, reminder, etc. associated with requests, scheduled reminder requests, scheduled recording requests, etc. previously stored/buffered for comparing number of requests, timestamps, adjusting preference settings, determining whether it is time to provide reminder, to perform recording, to see status of program scheduled to be recorded, etc., comprising at least one data request of scheduled recording, reminder, etc. among a plurality of requests shown for displaying on screen for modifying, tracking, conflict resolving, etc. is read on pulling, by the first system, a portion of the plurality of data processing requests from the buffer stored in the second system, wherein the portion of the plurality of data processing requests is at least one data processing request among plurality of data processing requests.
Thomas and its fully incorporated by references also disclose data processing result (reminder, directory of recording list, scheduled recording list, etc.) of the settings, scheduled-recording requests, scheduled-reminder requests are sent to cache/buffer or server to store or share with other user devices (see include, but are not limited to, E801: figures 12, 13b-19, 21-23, 40, 43; Ellis: figures 5, 18b-18e, 26-30; E430: figures 6, 9-10, 35, 42-43, 124-126)
Thus, the combination of Applegate and Thomas with its fully incorporated by reference(s) disclose all claimed limitations including limitations of “sending, by a first system, a plurality of data processing requests to a buffer, wherein the buffer is stored in a second system”, “pulling, by the first system, a portion of the plurality of data processing requests from the buffer…” as recited in claim 1.
For reasons given above, rejections of claims 1-27 are sustained as discussed below.
It is noted that during the interview, Examiner also explained the concept of the claimed invention is similar to the concept of one of user using a first system send requests to buffer in a region of memory stored in a second system for a playlists. The same user or other user/parent using the first device to retrieve/pull the previous stored requests in the playlist for editing the requests, check requests for parental control purposes, etc. and sending the modified/approved result in the playlist to the buffer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-27, each of independent claims 1, 14, 15 recites limitation “wherein the portion of the plurality of data processing requests is at least one data processing request among the plurality of data processing requests” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention (see discussion in “response to arguments” above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applegate et al. (US 20120137336) in view of Thomas et al. (US 20170127104).
Note: all documents that are directly or indirectly incorporated by references in their entirety in Thomas (see include, but are not limited to, paragraphs 0074, 0076, 0079, 0081, 0099, 0109) including 20020174430 (hereinafter referred to as E430), 7761892 (hereinafter referred to as Ellis), US (8,046,801 -referred to as E801), US 20100153885 are treated as part of the specification of Thomas (see for example, MPEP 2163.07 b).
Regarding claim 1, Applegate discloses a method for data processing, comprising:
sending, by a first system, a plurality of data processing requests to a location of a Video Hub Office (VHO), the location is in a second system (sending, by a first system with user device(s), a plurality of data processing requests to a location in a second system associated with VHO – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 4, 16, paragraphs 0032, 0034, 0046, 0067, 0085), wherein the second system is remote from the first system (one of the VHO is remote from the local VHO and/or router, metro intermediate office, video serving office, resident gateway, distribution node, and/or set top devices (see include, but are not limited to, figure 1, paragraph 0032), wherein the plurality of data processing requests include a plurality of data elements to be processed (requests comprises plurality of elements such as id, title, segment information, etc. to be processed to determine whether the requested content is stored at the local VHO or not (see include, but are not limited to, figures 4, 16, paragraphs 0067, 0078, 0085, 0109, 0115, 0132);
pulling a portion of the plurality of data processing requests from the location (pulling a portion of the plurality of data processing requests from the location of VHO to the determine aggregated number of requests, volume of requests, popularity of video, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, figures 4, 16, paragraphs 0042, 0067, 0069, 0085, 0115, 0121, 0129);
processing the portion of the plurality of data processing requests pulled from the location in order to obtain at least one data processing result (processing the portion of the plurality of data processing requests pulled from the location with volume of requests, aggregated number of requests in order to obtain at least one data processing result for forecasting demand for media items for providing result with portion of media item(s) to the location – see include, but are not limited to, figures 14-16, paragraphs 0048, 0117, 0123) ; and
sending the at least one data processing result to the location (sending/assigning the at least one data processing result with popular media content/portion to the location – see include, but are not limited to, figures 14-16, paragraphs 0117, 0123).
Applegate does not explicitly disclose the location is a buffer, wherein the buffer is a region stored in a second system; pulling, by the first system, a portion of the plurality of data processing requests from the buffer stored, wherein the portion of the plurality of data processing requests is at least one data processing request among the plurality of data processing request; processing, by the first system, the portion of the data to obtain at least one data processing result.
Thomas discloses sending, by a first system, requests to a buffer, wherein the buffer is a region of memory stored in a second system, wherein the plurality of data processing requests include a plurality of data elements to be processed; pulling, by the first system, a portion of the data processing requests from the buffer stored in the second system, wherein the portion of the plurality of data processing requests is at least one data processing requests among a plurality of data processing requests; processing, by the first system, the pulled portion of the requests to obtain at least one data processing result; and sending the data processing request from the first system to the buffer (sending, by first system comprises user device(s), requests/communications/settings to a buffer/cache/log for queuing/caching, wherein the buffer/log is a region of memory stored/located in storage at a second system such as content aggregator and/or content provider or distribution facility/server remote from the first system with a user device, wherein the plurality of data processing requests include a plurality of data elements such as title, time, name, etc. to be processed;
retrieving/pulling, by the first system with user device(s), a portion of data such as timestamp, program information, scheduled reminder, scheduled recording, preferences, etc. of the requests/settings/communications from the buffer/cached stored in the distribution facility/remote server for tracking, modifying, resolve conflicts, etc. wherein the portion of the plurality of requests is at least one data processing request among a plurality of requests for reminder, scheduled recording, viewing, etc.; and processing by the first system with user device(s), a portion of data of the commands/settings/requests from the buffer/logged data in order to obtain at least one data processing result of whether the number of requests exceeds a predetermined threshold of stream, whether additional stream is suggested/added, whether it’s time for recording/sending reminder, etc.; and sending at least one data with program information, program time, message, etc. of processing result from the first system with user device(s) to the buffer/cache/log at the content aggregator/content provider, distribution facility for popular/high demand content or requested content – see discussion in “response to arguments” and include, but are not limited to, Thomas: figures 3-5, 7, 9, paragraphs 0089, 0101, 0104, 0119-0126, 0133-0134, 0137-0139, 0143-0144, 0180, 0182, 0194, 0197; Ellis: figures 4-5, 18a, 18d, 18f; Ellis (US 8046801-referred to as E801: figures 2C, 2D, 11, 14, 16-19, 27, 38, col. 8, lines 10-34, col. 13, line 61-67, col. 18, lines 31-67, col. 20, lines 35-61; E430: figures 6, 21-23, 25-26, 34, 43, 46, 57-58, 68-69, 93-97, 101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Applegate with the teachings including sending requests to a buffer, wherein the buffer is region of memory stored in a second system, and pulling and processing portion of the data processing requests from the buffer, wherein the portion of the plurality of data processing requests is at least one data processing request among the plurality of data processing requests as taught by Thomas in order to yield predictable result such as queuing or keeping the requests to determine whether the number of requests exceeds predetermined threshold for further recommending to minimize number of streaming conflicts in the future or effectively keep tracks of number of requests (see Thomas: paragraphs 0006, 0011, 0139).
Regarding claim 2, Applegate in view of Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, wherein another portion of the plurality of data processing requests is processed by at least one third system, wherein each of the at least one third system is remote from the first system (another portion of the plurality of requests is processed by at least one remote VHO or server, wherein each of the at least one remote VHO, server is remote from the first system of local device/system – see include, but are not limited to, Applegate: figure 1, paragraphs 0032, 0046, 0127-0128; Thomas: figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 3, Applegate in view of Thomas discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the at least one data processing result is at least one first data processing result, wherein the at least one third system is configured to send at least one second data processing result to the buffer (the other VHO is configured to send second data processing result, portion that is not stored in the buffer at local VHO/distribution node/server to the buffer/storage at local VHO/distribution node/server – see include, but are not limited to, Applegate: figures 1, 4-6, paragraphs 0025, 0046, 0127-0128; Thomas: figures 3-4, 7, 9, paragraphs 0119-0126).
Regarding claim 4, Applegate in view of Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of data processing requests is a request for a data processing activity which uses less than a threshold amount of bandwidth (request for a data processing at shortest path, locally or at location that less than predetermined amount of network bandwidth – see include, but are not limited to, Applegate: paragraphs 0023, 0027, 0087, 0110, 0124; Thomas: paragraph 0219) .
Regarding claim 5, Applegate in view of Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data processing requests is sent to the buffer based on a distribution of data processing, wherein the distribution of data processing is determined based on at least one of speed and latency (processing request is sent to the location/buffer (local or shortest path) based on distribution of data processing based on at least one of speed and latency in timely manner in response to each request – see include, but are not limited to, Applegate: paragraphs 0032, 0046, 0112-0113, 0124, 0128; Thomas: paragraphs 0115, 0130, 0136).
Regarding claim 6, Applegate in view of Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: encrypting data to be processed, wherein each of the plurality of data processing requests includes a portion of the encrypted data (encrypting data such as authentication key to be processed, each of the processing requests includes a portion of the encrypted data – see include, but are not limited to, Thomas: paragraph 0020, 0028, 0058, 0166, 0204, 0213).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Applegate with the teaching of “encrypting data” as further taught by Thomas in order to yield predictable result of ensuring that the information/data is transmitted security (see for example, Thomas: paragraph 0204).
Regarding claim 7, Applegate in view of Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data processing requests is streamed to the buffer over time (see include, but are not limited to, Applegate: figures 1, 4, paragraphs 0032-0033., 0067, 0071; Thomas: paragraphs 0089, 0119, 0122).
Regarding claim 8, Applegate in view of Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data processing requests is sent to the buffer using a message queuing service cloud-based communication protocol (see include, but are not limited to, Applegate: figures 1, 4; Thomas: figure 4, paragraphs 0027, 0033, 0077, 0085, 0111-0114, 0119-0122).
Regarding claim 9, Applegate in view of Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one data processing result is sent to the buffer using a message publication service cloud-based communication protocol (see include, but are not limited to, Applegate: figures 1, 4; Thomas: figure 4, paragraphs 0027, 0033, 0046, 0077, 0085, 0106, 0111-0114, 0119-0122).
Regarding claim 10, Applegate in view of Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data processing requests is sent without opening any ports between the first system and the second system (processing requests is sent or access locally without opening any ports between first system and second system of remote/different VHOs/server – see include, but are not limited to, Applegate: paragraphs 0043, 0046, 0048, 0104, 0128; Thomas: figure 4, paragraphs 0119-0120, 0122).
Regarding claim 11, Applegate in view of Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data processing requests include requests for processing groups of frames among the video content, wherein each group of frames includes a plurality of frames (frames or images of requested video segment/asset- see include, but are not limited to, Applegate: figure 4, paragraphs 0048, 0032, 0078; Thomas: figure 2, paragraph 0080; E430: figures 61, 65, paragraphs 0300, 0450; Ellis: figures 6a-6b, 22, 25b).
Regarding claim 12, Applegate in view of Thomas discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising: processing, by the first system, a portion of the video content per-frame (see include, but are not limited to, Applegate: figure 4, paragraphs 0048, 0032, 0078; Thomas: figure 2, paragraph 0080; E430: figures 61, 65, paragraphs 0300, 0450; Ellis: figures 6a-6b, 22, 25b).
Regarding claim 13, Applegate in view of Thomas discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising: detecting at least one event with respect to the video content based on results of processing the portion of the video content per-frame, wherein the plurality of data requests are sent to the buffer in response to detection of the at least one event (detecting at least one event such as a request, a playback function, etc. to the video content based on results of processing the portion of the video content/data per-frame/image, wherein the plurality of data requests are sent to the buffer/location of the server/VHO in response to detection of the request, selection, playback function - see include, but are not limited to, Applegate: figures 1,4, paragraphs 0048, 0032, 0078-0079, 0115, 0121; Thomas: figures 1-2, paragraph 0080, 0119, 0122; E430: figures 61, 65, paragraphs 0300, 0450; Ellis: figures 6a-6b, 22, 25b).
Regarding claim 14, limitations of a non-transitory computer readable medium that correspond to the limitations of method in claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Particularly, Applegate in view of Thomas discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for causing a processing circuitry to execute a process, the process comprising:
sending, by a first system, a plurality of data processing requests to a buffer, wherein the buffer is region of memory stored in a second system, wherein the second system is remote from the first system, wherein the plurality of data processing requests include a plurality of data elements to be processed;
pulling, by the first system, a portion of the plurality of data processing requests from the buffer stored in the second system, wherein the portion of the plurality of data processing requests is at least one data processing request among the plurality of data processing requests;
processing, by the first system the portion of the plurality of data processing requests pulled from the buffer in order to obtain at least one data processing result; and
sending the at least one data processing result from the first system to the buffer (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1 and include, but are not limited to, Applegate: figures 1, 17, paragraphs 0022, 0137, 0140-0142, claim 22; Thomas: figures 3-4, paragraphs 0117, 0199).
Regarding claim 15, limitations of a system that correspond to the limitations of method and/or non-transitory computer readable in claim 1 and/or 14 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and/or claim 14. Particularly, Applegate in view of Thomas discloses a system (Applegate: figures 1, 7; Thomas: figures 3-4) for processing data, comprising:
a processing circuitry, wherein the system is a first system (control circuitry/processor – see Applegate: figure 17; Thomas: figure 3); and
a memory (memory/storage– see Applegate: figure 17; Thomas: figure 3),
the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the system to:
send a plurality of data processing requests to a buffer, wherein the buffer is a region of memory stored in a second system, wherein the second system is remote from the first system, wherein the plurality of data processing requests include a pluralty of data elements to be processed;
pull a portion of the plurality of data processing requests from the buffer stored in the second system, wherein the portion of the plurality of data processing requests is at least one data processing request among the plurality of data processing requests;
process the portion of the plurality of data processing requests pulled from the buffer in order to obtain at least one data processing result; and send the at least one data processing result to the buffer (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1 and/or claim 14).
Regarding claims 16-27, the additional limitations of the system that correspond to the additional limitations of the method in claims 2-13 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN SON PHI HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7295. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-6:30 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, NASSER M. GOODARZI can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/AN SON P HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
March 7, 2026