CTNF 18/569,893 CTNF 82218 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-10, 12, 14, and 16-23 are presented for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 14 is rejected because the claimed invention, appearing to be comprised of software alone without claiming associated computer hardware required for execution, is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility (i.e., transformation of data) or a well established utility (i.e. a practical application). Applicant is advised to amend the claim to include “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 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 Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), 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 multimedia data, wherein the processing system comprises at least two processing nodes arranged in a sequential order ([0011]); each processing node corresponding to an input manager ([0010], “input queue”) and an output manager ([0011]); two adjacent processing nodes being an upstream node and a downstream node respectively (Fig 3); an output manager of the upstream node and an input manager of the downstream node having an association relationship; the upstream node generating multimedia data for the downstream node; and the method comprises: generating a first processing task when first multimedia data exists in a first input manager of a first processing node, wherein the first processing task comprises the first multimedia data ([0011]); calling the first processing node to execute the first processing task to obtain second multimedia data, the second multimedia data being data obtained by processing the first multimedia data in the first processing task ([0011-12]); and writing the second multimedia data into a second input manager of at least one second processing node, the second input manager being an input manager associated with a first output manager of the first processing node ([0016]). Stankevichus does not teach that the data is multimedia data. AAPA teaches the use of electronic devices for processing multimedia data ([0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to process multimedia data. One would be motivated by the desire to extend Stankevichus to process multimedia data. Stankevichus and AAPA 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 . 07-21-aia AIA 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 Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), 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, AAPA 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. Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 18/569,893 Page 2 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/569,893 Page 4 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/569,893 Page 5 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/569,893 Page 6 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/569,893 Page 7 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/569,893 Page 8 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/569,893 Page 9 Art Unit: 2195