Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “an address for a specific type of computing device that may consume the content”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s claim recite “Sending a request for information associated with content to be addressed to a computing device over a time period” (emphasis added). The examiner notes applicants acknowledge that Haenel describes “a client device that can send a request for content using a URI and a caching request that includes a unique content identifier and optional expiration date information” but argues that since Haenel discloses “content can be requested using a URI, but a URI is the address where content is located”, therefore sending a request for content at a particular URI is not equivalent to sending a request for “content to be addressed to a computing device” or receiving a message indicating “one or more portions of addressable content”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Haenel discloses in [0026], the client device sends the request requesting the content from the content server, the content request comprises a request for the desired content item identified using a URI and an explicit caching request. Since Haenel discloses the device is able to request content by using a URI, it is clear that the request for the content will be delivered to the requesting computing device using the URI as an address to the content to a computing device which makes one or more portions of addressable content is received.
Applicant’s argue on page 9 that Haenel does not disclose “Sending a request for information associated with content to be addressed to a computing device over a time period”, “to cache, during the time period, the one or more portions of addressable content”, “cache, during the time period, the one or more portions of addressable content” (emphasis added). Applicant’s acknowledge that Haenel discloses an expiration date information on the content that is being requested to be cached and that although unclear, the expiration date information appears to refer to the amount of time before cached content could be out of demand.
Haenel discloses in [0026]-[0028] when the client device sends the content request requesting the content from the content server, the content request comprises a request for the desired content item identified using a URI and an explicit caching request, the caching request comprises: a unique content identifier which is independent of the URI; and optional expiration date information. Haenel discloses in [0039] In the embodiment of the present invention described herein content caching is performed based on the client recommendation. Haenel’s expiration date information refers to the cached content that will expire and be out of demand. Which means before the expiration date, the content request message includes the requested content that needs to be cached at a time where content is still deems to be in demand. Since applicant’s have not explicitly defined in the claims if the time period is a specific time period or a certain period, this time period can be any time.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Unpatentable over Kent (US 2011/0038470) and in view of Kotecha (US 2013/0219005) and in view of Haenel (US 2015/0373140).
Re Claim 1, Kent discloses a method comprising:
sending a request for information ([0141], reasons to user request relating to delivery of content. [0154], advertising region are alternated with content at pre-specified times);
sending, to the computing device, the one or more instructions to cause the computing device to:
obtain the one or more portions of content ([0141], [0142], ad content manage select and delivery advertisements to the communication devices connecting and requested content based on some preset, periodic basis; and
cache, during the time period, the one or more portions of content in a cache device ([0141], [0142], [0154] ad content manage select and delivery advertisements to the communication devices connecting and requested content based on some preset, periodic basis at the pre-specified times.
While Kent discloses that the content can be for specific devices, Kent does not explicitly disclose the request is associated with content to a computing device over a time period
receiving, based on the request, a message indicating one or more portions of addressable content to be cached over the time period; and
generating, based on the received message and for the computing device, one or more instructions indicating to cache, during the time period, the one or more portions of addressable content.
In the same field of endeavor, Kotecha discloses sending a request for information associated with content to be address to a computing device (Kotecha, fig. 5, fig. 6, [0055], content request from user device 110 to base station 120);
receiving, based on the request, a message indicating one or more portions of content to be cached (fig. 5, fig. 6, [0055]-[0056],base station receives content request from user device 110. While increasing a counter value for the request of content 515, it determines if the counter associated with content 515 is greater than a threshold. If the counter is greater than the threshold, it includes transmitting to a local cache, instructions to store the content in the local cache);
generating, based on the received message and for the computing device, one or more instructions indicating to cache, the one or more portions of content (fig. 5, fig. 6, [0056], base station 120 determines the request counter is greater than the threshold and transmits instructions to local cache 130 to retrieve and store the content in the local cache 130.);
sending, to the computing device, the one or more instructions to cause the computing device to (Kotecha, fig. 5, fig. 6, [0056], base station 120 transmits instructions to local cache 130.):
obtain the one or more portions of content ((Kotecha, fig. 5, fig. 6, [0056], base station 120 transmits instructions to local cache 130 to retrieve the content.); and
cache, the one or more portions of content in a cache device (fig. 5, fig. 6, [0056], base station 120 transmits instructions to local cache 130 to retrieve and store the content in the local cache 130).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Kent’s content for specific devices with Kotecha’s ability to choose the specific content for the devices which makes it addressable to the particular device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more versatile system by allowing certain content to be selected.
While Kent and Kotecha discloses that the content can be for specific devices for caching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the content would have needed to addressable to be able to select the particular content. However, Kent and Kotecha does not explicitly disclose the request is associated with addressable content to a computing device over a time period.
In the same field of endeavor, Haenel discloses request for information to be addressed to a computing device over a time period ([0026]-[0029] content request sent from a client includes URI and explicit caching instructions. The caching request includes unique content identifier (independent of the URI), optional expiration date information that the item will no longer be in demand.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Kent and Kotecha’s content instructions for specific devices with Haenel’s request for content to include explicit caching request. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more versatile system by allowing the caching item to have given an expiration date information based on the client’s recommendation of whether to cache the content.
Re Claim 2, Kent discloses wherein the content comprises advertising content ([0095], the data can include contacts, advertisements or other information). One of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Kent and Kotecha for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Haenel’s discloses addressable content ([0026]-[0029] content request sent from a client includes URI and explicit caching instructions. The caching request includes unique content identifier (independent of the URI).
Re Claim 3, Kent discloses wherein the computing device comprises at least one of : a consumer premises equipment, a switch, a router, a television, a digital video recorder, a mobile computing device, a content presentation device, a laptop, a smartphone, a tablet, or a set top box ([0088], The call receiver can be a cellular telephone, smartphone, personal digital assistant, computing system, set-top box, media player (e.g. mp3 or DVD player), or other digital device capable of receiving data over a voice network).
Re Claim 4, Kent wherein the request for information is sent to a server comprising an content server and wherein the message is received from the server ([0141], [0142], user request delivery of content. ad content manage select and delivery advertisements to the communication devices connecting and requested content based on some preset).
One of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Kent and Kotecha for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Haenel’s discloses addressable content ([0026]-[0029] content request sent from a client includes URI and explicit caching instructions. The caching request includes unique content identifier (independent of the URI).
Re Claim 5, Kent discloses wherein the request is sent based on at least one of: a schedule, a time of day, an indication of availability of new content, or an expiration of the time period ([0107], the advertisements component uploads advertisements weekly for random or targeted display to the user of the device. [0154] ad content manage select and delivery advertisements to the communication devices connecting and requested content based on some preset, periodic basis at the pre-specified times.)
Re Claim 6, Kent discloses wherein the one or more portions of addressable content are selected based on at least one of:
demographic information associated with one or more users of the computing device ([0196], location specific digital content based on subscriber’s location),
a particular service provider associated with the computing device, or
resources or hardware associated with the computing device.
One of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Kent and Kotecha for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Haenel’s discloses addressable content ([0026]-[0029] content request sent from a client includes URI and explicit caching instructions. The caching request includes unique content identifier (independent of the URI).
Re Claim 7, Kent discloses wherein the one or more portions of content are obtained from a content delivery network (CDN) ([0156], network to receive personalized content delivery). One of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Kent and Kotecha for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Haenel’s discloses addressable content ([0026]-[0029] content request sent from a client includes URI and explicit caching instructions. The caching request includes unique content identifier (independent of the URI).
Re Claim 8, Kent discloses wherein the cache device is operably coupled to the computing device ([0151], local advertising manager may manage cached advertisements on the device.)
Re Claim 9, Kent discloses playback the one or more portions of content from the cache device, and clear the cache based on the time period expiring ([0107], Server sends targeted advertisements to user who views the pages/content. the advertisements component uploads advertisements weekly for random or targeted display to the user of the device. [0212], data expiration value would indicate data needs to be refreshed.)
One of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Kent and Kotecha for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Haenel’s discloses addressable content ([0026]-[0029] content request sent from a client includes URI and explicit caching instructions. The caching request includes unique content identifier (independent of the URI).
With respect to claims 10-20, they are similar to claims 1-9 and therefore are rejected for the same reasons above.
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 HO T SHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (9:00am - 5:00pm).
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3089. 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.
/HO T SHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
HO T. SHIU
Examiner
Art Unit 2443
/NICHOLAS R TAYLOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2443