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 .
Response to Arguments
This is in response to applicant’s arguments dated 06/09/2026.
With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding 112(a) on pages 7-8, the argument is persuasive. The rejection under 112(a) is withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s argument in bridge paragraph between pages 9-10 and second paragraph on page 10 including the claims expressly recite data elements, Examiner notice that the previous Office Action does not state the claim does not recite “data elements”. Instead, the previous Office Action, on page 4, stated “the claims do not recite “the data processing requests 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 stored data…”. To clarify, the claims do not recite limitation “the data processing requests 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…”. Claims 1, 14, 15 merely recite “the plurality of data processing requests includes a plurality of data elements to be processed” and “the buffer is a region of memory stored in a second system”.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the added term “discrete” or “temporary” and “temporarily” are not even mentioned once in the Final Office Action response. By conjuring claim language and asserting that the claims lack this in order to maintain the rejection…This is clearly reversible error and renders the rejections entirety improper (page 10), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notices that as stated in the “response to argument” in the previous Office Action those limitations including the term “discrete” or “temporary”, “temporarily” are not recited in the claims. Therefore, there is no need to mention the terms, including “discrete”, temporary”, “temporarily”, that are not recited in the claims in the rejection in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the rejection is proper.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “However, the Office Action itself reads limitations from the specification into the claims. For the reasons noted above, the Office Action addresses language which is taught in the specification but does not match the specific language used in the claim, and argues against the features that were not recited in the claims nor relied upon in the prior response” (page 11), Examiner notices that there is nowhere showing that “the Office Action itself reads limitations from the specification into the claims” as argued by the Applicant.
Applicant further argues using a request history to estimate future demand is not comparable to sending requests to a buffer and pulling requests from the buffer because Applegate does not teach or otherwise suggest that the request history is processed in line with the precise wording of the claims, which recite:
sending, by a first system, a plurality of data processing requests to a buffer, wherein the buffer is a region of memory stored in a second system, …pulling, by the first system, a portion of the plurality of data processing request from the buffer stored in the second system…. Applegate does not teach or suggest that requests of the history are sent by a first system to a buffer stored in a second system and pulled by the first system from the buffer stored in the second system. Paragraph 97 teaches requests originating from VHO, but is silent on where those requests are sent and whether those requests are pulled. The Office Acton also states that “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. The Office does not identify a passage in Applegate supporting this conclusion. Thus, the Office Action entirety fails to explain which location (alleged second system) the request history is sent and that requests from the request history are later pulled from that location. even if request in Applegate must be pulled, the Office Action fails to establish where these requests are pulled from, let alone that the requests are pulled from the same location to which they were initially sent by one of the VHOs (alleged analog to the claimed first system) or that the same VHO which sent those requests also pulls them. Therefore, Applegate does not disclose the requests are sent from the first system to a second system, and pulled from the second system by the first system as claimed regardless of whether or not the requests are sent to a buffer in the second system or not. Applicant requests that the Office clarify 4 questions:
Which system in Applegate is alleged analog to the claimed first system?
Which system in Applegate is the alleged analog to the claimed second system?
Which paragraph in Applegate shows a request being sent from the system of (1) to the system of (2)?
Which paragraph in Applegate shows a request being pulled from the system of (2) by the system of (1)? (see Applicant’s remarks on pages 11-14).
In response, as previously addressed on page 5 in the Non-Final rejection regarding Applicant’s arguments against the reference 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. In other words, 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 in the rejection.
With respect to Applicant’s requests that the Office clarity the following 4 questions, the Office, in the non-final, pages 11-14, addressed how the “first system” and “second system” are interpreted. In particular, the answers to the Applicant’s questions are addressed below.
Question 1: which system in Applegate is alleged analog to the claimed first system?
Answer: the system with user device that sends user requests is interpreted as “a first system” (see pages 11, 13).
Question 2: Which system in Applegate is the alleged analog to the claimed second system?
Answer: the system with a buffer/storage that receives the requests sent by the user device is interpreted as the second system (see discussion on pages 12-13);
Question 3: Which paragraph in Applegate shows a request being sent from the system of (1) to the system of (2)?
Answer: Applegate, for example, in paragraphs 32, 34, 46, 127, and 128 disclose each VHO 102/ distribution node receives all requests from users in its metro area 104. Thus, a request (for content) is sent from the first system of user who makes a request is sent to second system (VHO or distribution node that receives the request). See also the disclosure in Thomas and discussion on page 13 and the Non-final rejection.
Question 4: Which paragraph in Applegate shows a request being pulled from the system of (2) by the system of (1)?
Answer: The rejection does not rely on Applegate for teaching of a request being pull from the system of (2) by the system of (1) as addressed on page 13 of the non-final rejection. In particular, Applegate discloses pulling the requests from the system 2 (pulling the requests to determine aggregated number of requests, volume of requests, etc. to determine popularity/demand for video – see discussed on page 12 of the non-final rejection. However, Applegate does not disclose the pulling is by the first system.
Thomas is relied on for the teaching of pulling requests from second system by first system as discussed on pages 13-14.
Therefore, the combination of Applegate and Thomas (and its fully incorporated by references including Ellis, E801, E430, 20030149988) discloses all claimed limitations.
Applicant disagrees that Thomas teaches sending and pully requests as claimed because none of the cited passages in these references event remotely teaches sending requests from a first system to a second system and pulling requests from the second system by the first system as claimed. For example, Ellis 20030149988 teaches both requests. However, Ellis 20030149988 does not anywhere suggests sending these requests to a second system and then pulling requests from the second system. E430 mentions a user sending recording requests, for example, in paragraph 469. However, E430 does not anywhere suggest that the user later pulls that recording request from the system it was sent to. Ellis 8046801 mentions “control circuitry 42 may also send data and command or requests back to television system. However, E801 does not even remotely suggests that the requests are initially sent by the television distribution facility (pages 14-16). This argument is respectfully traversed.
As discussed on pages 6, 8 of the non-final rejection, Thomas and its fully incorporated by references disclose a user device sends request for setting, schedule recording, playing back of content to remote server (distribution facility) for storing in a buffer/storage at the remote server. The user device that sent the requests of setting, recording schedule with pending list, etc. than can pulls the requests of settings, recording schedule in the pending list, etc. to modify or update, review, etc. the settings, schedule recording, etc. as shown in the portions cited Thomas, Ellis, E801,E430 and discussed on pages 7-8, 14).
With respect to Applicant argument regarding motivation because the combination of the references fails to teach the claimed features (page 16), Examiner respectfully disagrees since the combination of the references disclose all claimed features as discussed above. Therefore, the combination is proper.
For the reasons given above, rejections of claims 1-27 are discussed below.
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 includes 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 plurality 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nasser Goodarzi whose telephone number is (571) 272-4195. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am-4:30 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, 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 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.
/NASSER M GOODARZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights