DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to remarks and claim amendments filed by Applicant’s representative on January 22, 2026.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered, but are deemed unpersuasive to overcome the rejection of the claims in view of the current grounds of rejection and the applied prior art reference(s).
With regards to the independent claim(s), and claim 1 in particular, Applicant argues or remarks that Amrheim fails to properly teach or disclose particular recited feature(s) of the claim. In particular, Applicant argue that Amrheim fails to disclose or suggest the recited feature of “determining, based on the first location being associated with a first type of cache location of a plurality of types of cache locations, a second amount of time for which to store the first portion of portion of the content item”, as claimed by the claim.
In support of his position, Applicant firstly argues or notes that while Wei discloses or addresses ‘cache-control mechanisms’ and ‘TTL handling’ generally, he does not describe determining an amount of time for storage based on any association between a cache location and a cache-location type.
Thus, Wei recognizes that a caching system may have different storage components (e.g., "a local cache, a remote central storage module, or a storage area network (SAN)"), and that memory may be assigned or de-allocated "based on a 'time-to-live' (TTL) expiration period" Wei, 1 165. Applicant respectfully submits that Wei does not describe determining an amount of time because a particular content portion is stored at a cache location "associated with a first type of cache location of a plurality of types of cache locations," as recited in independent claim 1. The focus of Wei is on variant management, cache keys, and general cache-control behavior and does not differentiate among cache-location types for purposes of setting storage time or tie any time determination to cache-location type. Therefore, Wei does not disclose or suggest "determining, based on the first cache location being associated with a first type of cache location of a plurality of types of cache locations, a second amount of time for which to store the first portion of the content item," as recited in independent claim 1. The Office respectfully disagrees and asserts that all the feature(s) argued by Applicant are properly and sufficiently disclosed by the applied prior art in accordance with the requirements of the current claim recitation and/or language.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Wei does not teach the above feature(s) of “determining, based on the first cache location being associated with a first type of cache location of a plurality of types of cache locations, a second amount of time for which to store the first portion of the content item” because Wei’s invention appears to be focused on or concerned with {content} variant management, cache keys, and general ‘cache-control behavior’ but does not differentiate among cache-location types for purposes of setting storage time or tie any time determination to cache-location type -- the Office firstly asserts or remarks that the argued claim feature / limitation merely recites, or specifies at most, that an ‘amount of time’ {e.g. ‘second amount of time’} for storing of content in a ‘cache location’ of a plurality of ‘caches having different types of locations’ {cache ‘location’ types} is ‘determined’ based on an ‘association’ that exists between the particular cache location and its respective cache location ‘type’. In this regard, the Office notes that the term ‘association’ is broad and does not define, describe or further qualify the term ‘association’ between a ‘cache location’ and ‘cache location type’ in any way, other than to say / specify that there is an ‘association’ {or relationship} that exists between the two elements. – and at least this is expressly taught or disclosed by Wei, as acknowledged or noted by Applicant himself (e.g., “…Wei recognizes that a ‘caching system’ may have different ‘storage components’ { at certain ‘locations’} (e.g., a ‘local’ cache, a ‘remote’ central storage module, or a Storage Area Network (SAN)"), and that ‘memory’ {of the various ‘storage components’ at different ‘location’ [location types] } may be assigned or de-allocated "based on a 'time-to-live' (TTL) expiration period" Wei, 1 165…” ).
Indeed, Wei expressly teaches in one aspect the following:
In some embodiments, the Intermediary may include a TPU, a configuration or set of settings, and/or a ‘caching system’. The caching system may include and/or manage a ‘cache’ for storing one or more ‘web objects’, which may include fragments of certain types of web objects (e.g., web pages, scripts). The caching system may store or maintain a plurality of variants of a web object. By way of illustration, the caching system may include or access a local cache, a remote central storage module, or a storage area network (SAN). The caching system may be configured to track the validity of a stored object. The Caching system may assign or de-allocate memory to an object based on a "time-to-live" (TTL) expiration period, or a static or dynamic behavior of the item/fragment. In some embodiments, the caching system may assign or de-allocate memory to an object based on a configuration or setting of the intermediary.
In this regard, the Office also notes that in addition to Wei’s disclosed ‘cache locations’ (e.g., ‘cache’, ‘central storage’, SAN) and ‘cache location types’ (e.g., ‘local’, ‘remote’ or ‘network’ located), Wei in par [0204-0206] additionally recognizes other ‘types of cache locations’, such as ‘edge caches’ (caches located at the ‘edge of a network’ or ‘edge servers’), distinct from the previously disclosed cache locations and location types. And for this type of cache location / cache location type ‘association’, Wei expressly teaches that “if an Origin Server does not ‘set’ the TTL {for the ‘edge caches’}, it can use the Application Delivery Network [ADN] ‘cache option’s TTL’ {default TTL of the cache} as the ‘TTL’ value {amount of time}. And, further, if the Origin server ‘sets’ the TTL, it can use max { ‘ADN's TTL’, or ‘Operating System [OS]'s TTL’} as the TTL value {second amount of time}.
Based on the above, it is clear that Wei expressly and/or reasonably discloses the argued feature or limitation “determining, based on the first cache location being associated with a first type of cache location of a plurality of types of cache locations, a second amount of time for which to store the first portion of the content item”, consistent with the claim recitation and/or requirements of the current claim language.
Moreover, and in response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Office notes with significance that both Amrhein and Wei address similar issues of managing, setting and/or modifying .the TTL ‘expiration times’ of the web content {web objects, web pages, or ‘variant’s thereof) stored in a particular ‘cache location’ (cache / memory / network storage) having / ‘associated’ with a respective cache location type (‘local’, ‘remote’, ‘central’, ‘edge’ type cache locations). Both Amrhein and Wei also recognize that the ‘TTL’ setting (expiration time / period} for content stored in a cache / cache location cannot and should not remain fixed or ‘static’, and that the TTL of different caches of a Cache system located in different areas of a network are adjustable or can be set to different values, depending on the ‘dynamic behavior’ of the content -- or in Amrhein’s case, the changing ‘popularity’ of the content stored in the cache location -- lest the content become ‘stale’. There is thus ample and proper motivation to combine the references, and the Office maintains the combination of Amrhein in view of Wei as a proper ground of the rejection or prior art combination.
Accordingly, the Office maintains its rejection of independent claim 1 (and similarly the other independent claims) for at least the reasoning and justification(s) given above.
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(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amrhein et al. (Amrhein, hereinafter) (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0378666 A1) in view of Wei et al. (Wei, hereinafter) (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140280515 A1) (pub date September 2014).
As per claims 1, 8, 15, Amrhein discloses particular recited feature(s) of the invention, such as a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device (Amrhein: [0015]; Cache Management Service), first data indicative of popularity (Amrhein: [0016]-[0017] & [0024]; if the cached data receives ‘high access request’ or becomes ‘popular’ {the cached content has a ‘high score’}, its TTL is increased), wherein the first portion of the content item is caused to be stored at a first cache location for a first amount of time (Amrhein: ({0016]-[0017] & [0024]; the cache management system may store the requested data for a short time by ‘initially setting’ a short ‘Time-To-Live’ (TTL)); as well as the feature of
causing the first amount of time to be updated to a second amount of time (Amrhein: [0016]-[0017] & [0024]; if it scored ‘high’ (i.e. if the cached data receives high access request or becomes ‘popular’), its TTL is ‘increased’).
But while Amrhein discloses the above claim features, he does not expressly disclose the additional recited feature(s) of the method further comprising wherein the requested data ‘is a first portion of the content item’ as well as the feature of determining, based on the first cache location being associated with a first type of cache location of a plurality of types of cache locations, a second amount of time for which to store the first portion of the content item. Nonetheless, the features are expressly taught or disclosed by Wei in a related endeavor.
In particular, Wei expressly teaches the additional recited feature(s) of the method further comprising wherein the requested data ‘is a first portion of the content item’ (Wei: e.g., The intermediary may store ‘cached copies’ of content and other resources from the server. The cached copies may have been identified and extracted based on prior interactions with the server and/or client. When a client requests for an object such as a web page, the intermediary may return a ‘partial object’ from its cache almost immediately, i.e., while the intermediary is requesting the object from the server…The intermediary may employ client-side pre-fetch which allows the WPO to send a ‘fragment’ or ‘segment’ of an HTML page (e.g., the "head") as quickly as possible in response to a request ) [0059-0060] as well as the feature of determining, based on the first cache location being associated with a first type of cache location of a plurality of types of cache locations, a second amount of time for which to store the first portion of the content item (Wei: e.g., In some embodiments, the intermediary may include a TPU, a configuration or set of settings, and/or a ‘caching system’. The caching system may include and/or manage a ‘cache’ for storing one or more web objects, which may include ‘fragments’ of certain types of ‘web objects’ (e.g., web pages, scripts). The Caching system may store or maintain a plurality of ‘variants’ {versions} of a web object. By way of illustration, the Caching system may include or access a ‘Local Cache’, a ‘Remote Central Storage module’ or a ‘Storage Area Network’ (SAN) {location of a plurality of types of cache locations}. The caching system may be configured to track the ‘validity’ of a stored object. The Caching system may assign or de-allocate memory to an object based on a "Time-To-Live" (TTL) expiration period, or a static or dynamic behavior of the item/fragment. In some embodiments, the Caching system may ‘assign or de-allocate memory to an object’ based on a configuration or ‘setting’ of the Intermediary) [0165; Fig. 2J] (e.g., The Caching system may incorporate elements and/or features from systems and services such as Amazon's S3, and/or Cloudfront. The cache system may comprise or have access to a ‘distributed cache’) [0176; Fig. 2J] (e.g., TTL aspects of the Cache Mechanisms may include, inter alia, verifying the validity or ‘staleness’ of an cached object /fragment stored in an ‘Edge Cache’ {remotely located cache}, for example, of an Application Delivery Network [AND] or Content Delivery Network [CDN]) [0192-0206] (e.g., If the Origin server ‘does not set’ the TTL, it can use the ADN's Cache option's TTL. And if the Origin server ‘sets’ the TTL, it can use ‘max {ADN's TTL,OS's TTL}’ as the TTL…For a non-html resource, the TTL can be ‘specified’ in adn._optimizations._cache._age {i.e., default value may be “7 days”}. For a html resource, the TTL can be specified in adn._optimizations._htmlCache._ttl. {default value is “30 minutes”}) [0206-0208].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Amrhein with the invention or disclosures of Wei for the motivation of providing a system and method for managing multiple variants of a requested / cached HTTP object by an Intermediary which may generate ‘variants’ {versions} of an HTTP object, and store them in one or more cache ‘locations’ of a Cache system {i.e., local cache, remote Central Storage module, Edge Cache, etc.} [Wei: Abstract, 0004, 0006, 0008; Figs 2A & 2J].
Claim(s) 8, 15 recite(s) substantially the same limitations as claim 1, is/are distinguishable only by its/their statutory category (device, non-transitory CRM), and accordingly rejected on the same basis.
As per claim(s) 2, 9, 16, Amrhein in view of Wei, and Wei in particular, discloses the recited feature(s) of the method further comprising determining that first cache location is associated with a first type of cache location of a plurality of cache locations (Wei: e.g., In some embodiments, the intermediary may include a TPU, a configuration or set of settings, and/or a ‘caching system’. The caching system may include and/or manage a ‘cache’ for storing one or more web objects, which may include ‘fragments’ of certain types of ‘web objects’ (e.g., web pages, scripts). The Caching system may store or maintain a plurality of ‘variants’ {versions} of a web object. By way of illustration, the Caching system may include or access a ‘Local Cache’, a ‘Remote Central Storage module’ or a ‘Storage Area Network’ (SAN) {location of a plurality of types of cache locations}. The caching system may be configured to track the ‘validity’ of a stored object. The Caching system may assign or de-allocate memory to an object based on a "Time-To-Live" (TTL) expiration period, or a static or dynamic behavior of the item/fragment) [0165; Fig. 2J] (e.g., The Caching system may incorporate elements and/or features from systems and services such as Amazon's S3, and/or Cloudfront. The cache system may comprise or have access to a ‘distributed cache’) [0176; Fig. 2J] (e.g., TTL aspects of the Cache Mechanisms may include, inter alia, verifying the validity or ‘staleness’ of an cached object /fragment stored in an ‘Edge Cache’ {remotely located cache}, for example, of an Application Delivery Network [AND] or Content Delivery Network [CDN]) [0192-0206].
Regarding claim(s) 7, 14, 21, Amrhein in view of Wei, and Amrhein in particular, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising wherein causing the first value to be updated with the second value comprises sending, to a cache device at the first cache location, the second amount of time to cause the cache device to update the first amount of time to the second amount of time (Amrhein: {0024] & [0016]-[001 7]; if the client scores it high, the cache management system may increase the TTL of the data item within the cache).
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amrhein in view of Wei and in further view of Enguehard et al (hereinafter Enguehard), US Patent Publication 20200244758 A1 (filing date January 2019).
As per claim(s) 3, 10, 17, while Amrhein in view of Wei discloses substantial features of the method as above including the recited features of wherein determining the second amount of time comprises determining, based on the threshold being satisfied (Amrhein: [0016]-[0017] & [0024]; if the cached content has a ‘high’ score {i.e. if the cached data receives ‘high access request’ or becomes ‘popular’…} ), and based on the first cache location (Wei: e.g., in some embodiments, the Caching system may assign or de-allocate memory to an object based on a ‘configuration’ or ‘setting’ of the Intermediary. The ‘configuration’ or ‘setting(s)’ may be ‘User-defined’ and/or set by the Intermediary…The ‘configuration’ may store, maintain or keep track of policies, rules and/or conditions for setting a ‘validity period’ {TTL} for the generated variants, and/or policies, rules and/or conditions for updating, adding, removing and/or replacing a variant and/or an object stored by the caching system) [0165-0166] -- they do not expressly disclose the additional recited feature(s) of the method ‘wherein the first portion of the content item is encoded at a first bitrate’, and wherein determining the second amount of time for the first portion of the content item to be stored in cache at the first cache location also includes consideration for requested content encoded at the first bitrate’.
However, in a related endeavor, Enguehard discloses the additional recited feature(s) of the method ‘wherein the first portion of the content item is encoded at a first bitrate’, and wherein determining the second amount of time for the first portion of the content item to be stored in cache at the first cache location also includes consideration for requested content encoded at ‘the first bitrate’ (Enguehard: e.g., The forgoing is addressed by embodiments of the present technology directed to system, method and computer-readable medium for video Content Delivery Networks (CDN) that utilizes chunk-level content addressing and multi-tiered content popularity assessment (in deployed networking technologies) to make intelligent decision with regards to optimal processing of content request and content delivery. The optimal processing of content-related traffic, in one regard, is directed to enhancing a hit ratio of a cache system, which in turn reduces latency and network loading associated with servicing of request for contents such as video. As such, some embodiments of the present invention are directed to increasing cache hit rate at the network edge while also reducing adverse impacts (i.e., latency and network load) associated with cache misses. To that end, embodiments of the disclosed technology utilize network-layer video chunk naming to facilitate popularity-based multi-tier classification for the requested contents…..In some embodiments, named-video chunks (content identifier embedded within network address of the request packet header) may be used in the forwarding plane within a system and/or configuration that is deployable in current IP-based networks. Accordingly, each video segment may be matched with a ‘unique network identifier’, using, for example, a 64-bit encoding to contain the video identifier, the identifier of the segment within the video, and potentially ‘additional metadata’ such as the segment duration and the ‘requested video bitrate/quality’) [0025-0026].
It would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the combination with the above said additional feature(s), as expressly disclosed by Enguehard, for the motivation of providing a system and method for implementing an in-network caching system, and in particular for steering a content request among a plurality of cache servers based on multi-tier assessment of content popularity {i.e., ‘popular’, ‘semi-popular’, or ‘unpopular’ content} [Enguehard: Abstract, 0001] [Figs. 1, 2 & 8].
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amrhein in view of Wei and in further in view of Vantalon et al. (Vantalon, hereinafter), US Patent Publication 10,812,846 B1 (filing date April 2019)
As per claim(s) 4, 11, 18, Amrhein in view of Wei discloses substantial features of the method as in claim 1 above, but they do not explicitly disclose the additional recited feature of the method wherein the first portion of the content item includes a manifest file.
However, Vantalon in a related endeavor, discloses the additional recited feature of the method wherein the first portion of the content item includes a manifest file (Vantalon: e.g., Live and on-demand content distribution systems over IP utilize industry standards (such as HLS and DASH) to define media objects that include for each event a media description (i.e. ‘manifests’ or playlist depending on the delivery standards) that references audio and video media elements (i.e. ‘audio / video fragment or segment’ depending on the delivery standards) and their ‘associated metadata’ ) [col 1, L65 — col 2, L20].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination with Vantalon to provide a method or apparatus for a Caching Recommendation Engine which improves the delivery quality of IP services by performing real-time reinforcement learning of the CDN behavior, and continuously computing caching recommendations by leveraging novel Al techniques to maximize CDN caching efficiency and performance [Vantalon: Abstract, col 4, L15-31].
Claim(s) 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amrhein in view of Wei and in further view of Basu et al. (Basu, hereinafter) (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp ?tp=&amumber=833 7092).
Regarding claim 5, 12, 19, Amrhein in view of Wei discloses substantial features of the method as in claim 1 above, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the first amount of time is associated with a first time period, and wherein the second amount of time is associated with at least one of: the first time period or a second time period.
However, Basu in analogous art, discloses wherein the first amount of time is associated with a first time period (Basu: Page 1067, Para 1-2; an original TTLis assigned for the first/cached content); and wherein the second amount of time is associated with at least one of: the first time period or a second time period (Basu: Page 1067, Para. 1-2; the content original TTL is extended or decremented (remained as originally assigned, then decremented) based on the cache hit rate).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the combination with the teachings of Basu in order to optimize the system performance by adaptively allocating TTLs for different cached contents.
Regarding claim 6, 13, 20, Amrhein in view of Wei discloses in view of Basu, and Basu in particular, teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising enforcing the first amount of time at the first cache location during the first time period; or enforcing the second amount of time at the first cache location during the second time period (Basu: e.g., expressly discloses the first time period comprises a first time window during which the first amount of time is enforced by the cache; or the second time period comprises a second time window during which the second amount of time is enforced by the cache [Wingdings font/0xE0] [Page 1067, Para. 1-2]; the content original TTL is extended or decremented (remained as originally assigned, then decremented) based on the cache hit rate).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the combination with the teachings of Basu in order to optimize the system performance by adaptively allocating TTLs for different cached contents.
Conclusion
Applicant’s arguments and/or remarks necessitated the same ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.06(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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENFORD J MADAMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-7989. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Christopher Parry can be reached on 571-272-8328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/GLENFORD J MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights