DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10, 12, 14, and 16-23 are presented for examination.
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 .
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, 10, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stankevichus et al. (US PG Pub No. 2020/0089530 A1) in view of Amini et al. (US PG Pub No. 2007/0299980 A1), further in view of William, Jr. et al. (US PG Pub No. 2019/0036832 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stankevichus teaches a processing method for multimedia data, applied to a processing system for the upstream node and a downstream node respectively (Fig 3); an output
generating a first processing task, wherein the first processing task comprises the first
calling the first processing node to execute the first processing task to obtain second
writing the second
Stankevichus does not teach that the data is multimedia data and extracting first multimedia data from a first input manager of a first processing node in response to the first multimedia data existing in the first input manager.
Amini teaches a distributed stream processing system for processing multimedia streams from multimedia clients and servers ([0004]) composed of upstream/downstream processing nodes/elements ([0007]), each associated with an input queue/buffer ([0016]). Amini states a processing element is eligible to consume/process data specifically based on data being present ([0097-98], wherein “Processing element j is eligible for a fraction of p∆t if 1.) its input buffer occupancy b(t) is greater than a pre-defined threshold
b
0
and 2.) It has adequate tokens to expend on the computational resource”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to extract first multimedia data from a first input manager of a first processing node in response to the first multimedia data existing in the first input manager. One would be motivated by the desire to avoid wasted computational resources as attempting to generate a processing task or invoke a processing node when no data is present would needlessly consume processing resources.
Stankevichus and Amini do not teach the use of an output manager and only teaches the use of an input queue.
Williams teaches the use of input queues for storing packets received from a previous stage and output queues for sending packets to the corresponding next stage ([0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the use of an output manager such as an output queue. One would be motivated by the desire to manage and store the data prior to delivering the processed data as taught by Williams.
Regarding claim 10, Stankevichus teaches wherein the processing task of each processing node comprises at least one of following information: identifier information of the processing node (abstract), multimedia data input to the input manager of the processing node, multimedia data output to the output manager of the processing node, and generation time of the processing task.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, they are the device and program product claims of claim 1 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2-9 and 16-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stankevichus et al. (US PG Pub No. 2020/0089530 A1) in view of Amini et al. (US PG Pub No. 2007/0299980 A1), in view of William, Jr. et al. (US PG Pub No. 2019/0036832 A1), further in view of Johnston et al. (US PG Pub No. 2022/0147344 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Stankevichus, Amini and Williams do not teach determining a third processing node to be deleted in the processing system and a first adjacent node to the third processing node, wherein the first adjacent node comprises a first upstream node and/or a first downstream node; and deleting an association relationship between an input manager of the third processing node and an output manager of the first upstream node; and/or, deleting an association relationship between an output manager of the third processing node and an input manager of the first downstream node.
Johnston teaches the modification of nodes in an existing workflow wherein can be nodes are added or removed ([0026]). Johnston further teaches automatically connecting the inputs of patched-in or added nodes to the outputs of nodes in the target workflow and detecting and resolving conflicts between the configuration of the target node, which provide input to patched-in nodes and the expected configuration of input nodes to the patched-in nodes ([0026]; [0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to delete an association relationship between an input manager of the deleted third processing node and an output manager of the first upstream node; and/or, deleting an association relationship between an output manager of the third processing node and an input manager of the first downstream node. One would be motivated by the desire allow the modifications of workflow while resolving potential conflicts as taught by Johnston.
Regarding claim 3, Johnston teaches wherein before deleting the association relationship between the input manager of the third processing node and the output manager of the first upstream node, the method further comprises: setting a first label in the output manager of the first upstream node, the first label being used for indicating that a processing task of the first upstream node stops generating multimedia data for the input manager of the third processing node ([0085]).
Regarding claim 4, Johnston teaches wherein deleting the association relationship between the input manager of the third processing node and the output manager of the first upstream node comprises: deleting the association relationship between the input manager of the third processing node and the output manager of the first upstream node when no target processing task exists, the target processing task being a processing task being executed by the first upstream node and used for generating multimedia data for the input manager of the third processing node ([0026]; [0075]).
Regarding claim 5, Johnston teaches wherein deleting the association relationship between the input manager of the third processing node and the output manager of the first upstream node comprises: deleting the association relationship between the input manager of the third processing node and the output manager of the first upstream node when it is detected that no fourth multimedia data exists in the input manager of the third processing node ([0026]; [0075]).
Regarding claim 6, Johnston teaches wherein deleting the association relationship between the input manager of the third processing node and the output manager of the first upstream node comprises: generating a second processing task when it is detected that fourth multimedia data exists in the input manager of the third processing node, the second processing task comprising the fourth multimedia data; and deleting the association relationship between the input manager of the third processing node and the output manager of the first upstream node ([0026]; [0075]).
Regarding claim 7, Johnston teaches deleting the association relationship between the output manager of the third processing node and the input manager of the first downstream node comprises: deleting the association relationship between the output manager of the third processing node and the input manager of the first downstream node when no multimedia data exists in the input manager of the third processing node, and/or when no processing task being executed by the third processing node exists ([0026]; [0075]).
Regarding claim 8, Johnston teaches wherein when the third processing node has the first upstream node and the first downstream node, the method further comprises: after the two types of association relationships are deleted, if the first upstream node does not have a downstream node, and/or if the first downstream node does not have an upstream node, establishing an association relationship between the output manager of the first upstream node and the input manager of the first downstream node ([0026]; [0075]).
Regarding claim 9, Johnston teaches determining a fourth processing node to be added and second adjacent nodes of the fourth processing node, the second adjacent nodes comprising a second upstream node and/or a second downstream node, and the second upstream node and the second downstream node being existing processing nodes in the processing system; establishing an association relationship between an output manager of the second upstream node and an input manager of the fourth processing node; and/or, establishing an association relationship between an output manager of the fourth processing node and an input manager of the second downstream node ([0026]).
Regarding claims 16-23, they are the device claims of claims 2-9 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-9 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 12, 14, and 16-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(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 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 ERIC C WAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1012. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/Eric C Wai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights