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
Arguments and amendments filed 9/19/2025 have been examined.
Clams 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 16 are amended.
Claims 4 and 12 are cancelled.
In this Office Action, claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-16 are currently pending.
This Office Action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) and the previous prior art rejection 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.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 112 and the amended claims (i.e. removing “and/or” language etc.) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed regarding rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to the argument: “Claims 1-16 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the Interview Summary, with respect to this rejection, the Examiner asked for clarification concerning how the packing step is performed. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to further provide that packing serves to compress and archive the at least one data as a share, as supported by paragraph [0026] addressing the Examiner's question concerning what packing actually does.
Further, towards the goal of showing a practical technical application, the Applicant has added to the preamble that the method is for media and entertainment production pipeline workloads, and also amended the body of the claim to recite the decentralized content production pipeline network. This latter limitation was only recited previously in the preamble and may not have been given weight previously for that reason.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts that the inventions direction/amendments towards “Applicant has added to the preamble that the method is for media and entertainment production pipeline workloads, and also amended the body of the claim to recite the decentralized content production pipeline network” and “packing serves to compress and archive the at least one data as a share” implies that the claims nonabstract; however, the test is not whether the claim is confined to a particular field of use or technological environment, see Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment”). The relevant question, even at the first step of the Mayo/Alice analysis, is “whether the claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, the invention uses computer technology, but the Specification describes the claimed
solution as a scheme in collecting, storing and managing electronic records over time (see for
example specification para. [0007] “data sharing service (vrepod) that is configured to serve
data in a corresponding repository, wherein the data includes metadata segments
corresponding to data segments in a log-structured manner; execute, by a second
participant node of the participant nodes, a client polling service (vsyncd) that polls the
data sharing service to gather new records from a last fetched log location of the
repository of the first participant node and identify and send a request for a specific data
segment that is stored in the repository of the first participant node”).
And collecting, storing, and organizing information describes the abstract idea to which Appellants’ claims are directed, not an improvement in computer technology. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d at 1328 (“the heart of the claimed invention lies in creating and using an index to search for and retrieve data ... an abstract concept”).
Thus, as the test for patent eligibility is not whether the claim is confined to a particular field of
use or technological environment (“the method is for media and entertainment production pipeline workloads” as asserted above), (see, again Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)), the Examiner is unconvinced the claims are directed to eligible subject matter and thus this argument is moot.
As to the argument: “Further, with respect to the step of transferring the archived format, the Applicant has amended the claim to further require that it is done by only transferring bits required to construct a dependent element at the second participant node. Support can be found, for example, in paragraph [0033]. In view of these amendments, the Applicant requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 101.”;
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts that the inventions direction/amendments towards “Applicant has amended the claim to further require that it is done by only transferring bits required to construct a dependent element at the second participant node” implies that the claims nonabstract; however, the test is not whether the claim is confined to a particular field of use or technological environment, see Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment”). The relevant question, even at the first step of the Mayo/Alice analysis, is “whether the claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, the invention uses computer technology, but the Specification describes the claimed
solution as a scheme in collecting, storing and managing electronic records over time (see for
example specification para. [0007] “data sharing service (vrepod) that is configured to serve
data in a corresponding repository, wherein the data includes metadata segments
corresponding to data segments in a log-structured manner; execute, by a second
participant node of the participant nodes, a client polling service (vsyncd) that polls the
data sharing service to gather new records from a last fetched log location of the
repository of the first participant node and identify and send a request for a specific data
segment that is stored in the repository of the first participant node”).
And collecting, storing, and organizing information describes the abstract idea to which Appellants’ claims are directed, not an improvement in computer technology. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d at 1328 (“the heart of the claimed invention lies in creating and using an index to search for and retrieve data ... an abstract concept”).
Thus, as the test for patent eligibility is not whether the claim is confined to a particular field of
use or technological environment (“Applicant has amended the claim to further require that it is done by only transferring bits required to construct a dependent element at the second participant node” as asserted above), (see, again Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)), the Examiner is unconvinced the claims are directed to eligible subject matter and thus this argument is moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-3, 5-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites: (Step 2a, Prong One)
transferring data from a first participant node to a second participant node.
The limitation of transferring data from a first participant node to a second participant node, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a generic “participant nodes”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from
practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “participant nodes” language,
“transferring” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually moving
generic “data” between nodes using generic “transferring” steps. Similarly, the limitation(s) of executing; executing and packing, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “participant nodes”, executing; executing and packing in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually receiving generic data and “metadata” and transformations” and performing generic “executing” to send/request generic “data” steps. If a claim limitation, under its
broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the
recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping
of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion)).
Further, these concepts also recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”; (such as
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) where
performing generic transferring/executing steps of generic data using generic participant nodes is a method of human activity in commercial or legal interactions.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites one additional element – using a participant node with a method to perform both the executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps. The participant node with a method in both steps is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor (see spec. para. [0022] “However, there could be any number of sites and corresponding computing systems
(nodes).”) performing a generic computer function of “transferring”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that
are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional element of a participant node with a method to perform both the executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 2, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “recording a cross-node dependency for the data between the first participant node and the second participant node in the dependency graph”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “recording a cross-node dependency for the data between the first participant node and the second participant node in the dependency graph” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “recording a cross-node dependency for the data between the first participant node and the second participant node in the dependency graph” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 3, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the data are at least one of a production content data
and an organizational data”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the data are at least one of a production
content data and an organizational data” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “wherein the data are at least one of a production content data and an organizational data” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 5, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the production structures are at least one of a sequence, a shot, and/or a content element for a media production”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the production structures are at least one of a
sequence, a shot, and/or a content element for a media production” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “wherein the production structures are at least one of a sequence, a shot, and/or a content element for a media production” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 6, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein each repository asynchronously replicate DataStore records to other repositories to thereby cause each node to store a shard and a copy of metadata stored in repositories of other nodes”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein each repository asynchronously replicate DataStore
records to other repositories to thereby cause each node to store a shard and a copy of
metadata stored in repositories of other nodes” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “wherein each repository asynchronously replicate DataStore records to other repositories to thereby cause each node to store a shard and a copy of metadata stored in repositories of other nodes” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 7, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein each repository is an append-only sparse three dimensional
persistent hash map”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein each repository is an append-only sparse three dimensional persistent hash map” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “wherein each repository is an append-only sparse three dimensional persistent hash map” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 8, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “syncing all required upstream dependencies of the data packing the required upstream dependencies into an archived format based on a similarity index computed across the dependency graph”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “syncing all required upstream dependencies of the data packing the required upstream dependencies into an archived format based on a similarity index computed across the dependency graph” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “syncing all required upstream dependencies of the data packing the required upstream dependencies into an archived format based on a similarity index computed across the dependency graph” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites: (Step 2a, Prong One)
transferring data from a first participant node to a second participant node.
The limitation of transferring data from a first participant node to a second participant node, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a generic processor/memory, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from
practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processor/memory language,
“transferring” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually moving
generic “data” between nodes using generic “transferring” steps. Similarly, the limitation(s) of executing; executing and packing, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the processor/memory, executing; executing and packing in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually receiving generic data and “metadata” and transformations” and performing generic “executing” to send/request generic “data” steps. If a claim limitation, under its
broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the
recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping
of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion)).
Further, these concepts also recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”; (such as
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) where
performing generic transferring/executing steps of generic data using a generic processor/memory is a method of human activity in commercial or legal interactions.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites one additional element – using a processor with a memory to perform both the executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps. The processor with a memory in both steps is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor (see spec. para. [0022] “However, there could be any number of sites and corresponding computing systems
(nodes).”) performing a generic computer function of “transferring”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that
are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor with a memory to perform both the executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 10, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to record a cross-node dependency for the data between the first participant node and the second participant node in the dependency graph”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to record a cross-node dependency for the data between the first participant node and the second participant node in the dependency graph” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to record a cross-node dependency for the data between the first participant node and the second participant node in the dependency graph” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 11, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the data are at least one of a production content data and an organizational data”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the data are at least one of a
production content data and an organizational data” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “wherein the data are at least one of a production content data and an organizational data” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 13, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the production structures are at least one of a sequence, a shot, and/or a content element for a media production”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the production structures are at least one of a sequence, a shot, and/or a content element for a media production” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “wherein the production structures are at least one of a sequence, a shot, and/or a content element for a media production” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 14, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein each repository asynchronously replicate DataStore records to other repositories to thereby cause each node to store a shard and a copy of metadata stored in repositories of other nodes”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein each repository asynchronously replicate
DataStore records to other repositories to thereby cause each node to store a shard
and a copy of metadata stored in repositories of other nodes” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “wherein each repository asynchronously replicate DataStore records to other repositories to thereby cause each node to store a shard and a copy of metadata stored in repositories of other nodes” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 15, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein each repository is an append-only sparse three-dimensional persistent hash map”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein each repository is an append-only sparse three-dimensional persistent hash map” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “wherein each repository is an append-only sparse three-dimensional persistent hash map” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 16, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to further sync all required upstream dependencies of the data packing the required upstream dependencies into an archived format based on a similarity index computed across the dependency graph”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to further sync all required upstream dependencies of the data packing the required upstream dependencies into an archived format based on a similarity index computed across the dependency graph” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract
idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to further sync all required upstream dependencies of the data
packing the required upstream dependencies into an archived format based on a similarity index computed across the dependency graph” steps to perform both the aforementioned executing; executing and packing; and transferring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. US Pub. No. 2018/0129697 A1, in view of Vienneau et al., US Pub. No.: 2007/0185881 A1, in view of Borochoff et al. US Pub. No. 2019/0324989 A1, in view of Lehouillier et al., US Pub. No.: 2015/0269215 A1, in view of Grunwald et al., US Pub. No. 2021/0081432 A1.
As to claim 1 (and substantially similar claim 9), Mullins discloses:
the method comprising:
executing, by a first participant node of the plurality of participant nodes,
in the decentralized content production pipeline network,
(Mullins [0032] As presented, system 100 comprises client devices 102A-C, distributed network 104, and a distributed server environment comprising one or more servers, such as server
devices 106A-C.)
a data sharing service that is configured to serve data in a corresponding repository,
wherein the data includes metadata
(Mullins teaches sharing/serving various types of metadata portions/segments see Figs. 1-2; para [0033] The interface component may enable the creation, modification and navigation of various data sets and graphical representations. In examples, the various datasets may comprise (or be otherwise associated with), for example, resource identifiers, resource metadata, relationship information, asserted. relationships, graphical mapping information, query data, rulesets, such as, for example, inference rules, authorization information, authentication information, etc., as discussed in further detail below. Generally, the datasets are stored on one or more server devices 106A-C and are accessible by the client devices 102A-C ... The underlying resources represented in the various datasets' may be stored locally or in a data store, such as a cloud storage application, accessible to client devices 102A-C.";
See also [0030] As an example, rather than transmitting all the data in the isolated collection, only a portion of that data may be transmitted. For instance, the asserted data, but not the inferred data, may be transmitted along with the ruleset for the isolated collection.);
corresponding to data in a log structured manner;
(Mullins teaches long term and versioned storage, i.e. a log see [0082] In further examples, method 775 and method 785 depicted in FIGS. 7D-7E may be used for transfer of at least
a portion of the isolated collection between long term storage (such as disk storage) and memory (such as random access memory (RAM)).; see also [0051] As such, the data that has been inferred may be identified and then filtered based on the version number of the ruleset, and queries are able to return results that correspond to the particular API or application version, despite other versions of rulesets having been created.)
executing, by a second participant node of the participant nodes, a client polling service that polls the data sharing service to gather new records from a last fetched log location of the repository of the first participant node and identify and send a request for a specific data that is stored in the repository of the first participant node;
(Mullins teaches updating the collection/interrogating data stores, i.e. polling nodes for data segments see [0068] At operation 762, the first subset of rules is executed at update time to generate inferred data including one or more inferred relationship. Update time occurs when a change or update is made to the isolated collection, including a first time accessing an isolated collection where none of the rules in the ruleset have been executed against the isolated collection. The inferred data generated at operation 762 is stored in the isolated collection.;
See also Fig. 1, para [0034] [0034] Client devices 102A-C may be further configured to interrogate data stores comprising the resources corresponding to the resource identifiers in the various data sets.);
Mullins does not disclose:
a method for synchronizing data between a plurality of participant nodes in a decentralized content production pipeline network, for media and entertainment production pipeline workloads,
where the dependency graph includes a cross-node dependency for the data between the first participant node and the second participant node;
packing, by the first participant node, the at least one data into an archived format
and
transferring the archived format from the first participant node to the second participant node
however, Vienneau discloses:
a method for synchronizing data between a plurality of participant nodes in a decentralized content production pipeline network, for media and entertainment production pipeline workloads,
(Vienneau teaches a distributed rendering pipeline for media for editing/applying media and synchronization, i.e. “synchronizing data between a plurality of participant nodes in a decentralized content production pipeline network, for media and entertainment production pipeline workloads” see [0038] Further, the database may be distributed database system wherein information is stored in multiple storage units may or may not be geographically diverse and managed by a centralized DBMS 212 via network 214.; see also [0026] A relational database management system (RDBMS) is integrated directly with post-production compositing software. Each element that contributes to the rendering pipeline is tracked independently by the RDBMS, which is located on a centralized server. With this integration, the post-production software can report on the state of any particular element of the rendering pipeline. The system maintains a history (i.e., keeps track) of which clips are in process, finished, open and how long each has been worked on.;
see also [0011] As the end-user manipulates media by editing, applying tools, etc., the creative application constructs a dependency graph reflecting the structure of the composition.;
see also Collaboration Details [0089] To implement/manage the database lock and to
manage synchronization, one or more embodiments of the invention utilize a permit server ( e.g., within computer 200).)
where the dependency graph includes a cross-node dependency for the data between the first participant node and the second participant node;
(Vienneau teaches tracking rendering tasks across node dependencies/dependency graphs, i.e. “dependency graph includes a cross-node dependency for the data between the first participant node and the second participant node” see [0046] Each element that is used by a node 102-106 in a dependency graph 100 is tracked independently by the RDBMS 212 that is cited on a centralized server. With the integration, the post-production software 208 can report on the state of any particular element of the dependency graph 100/rendering pipeline; see also [0056-0057] In this regard, a virtual folder structure may be presented to the user with a root and various folders/subfolders. Within the folders are various setups or dependency graphs (i.e., image processing trees). Accordingly, each setup has various nodes including media nodes (i.e., that refer to image data), image modifier tools ( e.g., that perform some sort of image modification such as degraining, compositing, blurring, etc.), and output nodes (that identifies where the result is written to). The folders may also include project information that identifies project-related information such as the director's name, client name, title of project, location, etc.). [0057] All of the metadata presented via the API or UI is stored in the database (e.g., in various tables). The metadata stored in the tables may also be used to recreate a dependency graph if necessary. Accordingly, the metadata provides attribute information relating to the various nodes within a dependency graph.;
See also [0100] In view of the above, it may be understood that both media content (i.e., image data) and metadata relating to a composition may be stored in a centralized database.; and [0123] At step 602, metadata for each element of the dependency graph is stored in a database (i.e., a centralized database), wherein the database is accessible across a network
to multiple users. Such metadata may include data relating to a node of the dependency graph, or data relating to a connection between two or more nodes of the dependency graph. By storing such metadata, the different modifications to the image data performed by multiple users may be tracked in an easy and efficient manner)
packing, by the first participant node, the at least one data into an archived format segment
(Vienneau teaches storing metadata for node dependencies/dependency graphs, i.e. “packing, by the first participant node, the at least one data into an archived format”
See [0056-0057] In this regard, a virtual folder structure may be presented to the user with a root and various folders/subfolders. Within the folders are various setups or dependency graphs (i.e., image processing trees). Accordingly, each setup has various nodes including media nodes (i.e., that refer to image data), image modifier tools ( e.g., that perform some sort of image modification such as degraining, compositing, blurring, etc.), and output nodes (that identifies where the result is written to). The folders may also include project information that identifies project-related information such as the director's name, client name, title of project, location, etc.). [0057] All of the metadata presented via the API or UI is stored in the database (e.g., in various tables). The metadata stored in the tables may also be used to recreate a dependency graph if necessary. Accordingly, the metadata provides attribute information relating to the various nodes within a dependency graph.;
See also [0100] In view of the above, it may be understood that both media content (i.e., image data) and metadata relating to a composition may be stored in a centralized database.; and [0123] At step 602, metadata for each element of the dependency graph is stored in a database (i.e., a centralized database), wherein the database is accessible across a network
to multiple users. Such metadata may include data relating to a node of the dependency graph, or data relating to a connection between two or more nodes of the dependency graph. By storing such metadata, the different modifications to the image data performed by multiple users may be tracked in an easy and efficient manner)
and
transferring the archived format from the first participant node to the second participant node
(Vienneau teaches for export/rendering final results with dependency metadata for archiving i.e. “transferring the archived format from the first participant node to the second participant node”
See [0103-0106] File Import/Output [0103] File importation is an operation by which the user
can associate a piece of external media (e.g., image data or media content) with some data kept in the database. In this regard, a file import preview allows the user to apply a tool
pipeline ( e.g., the various tools in a dependency graph) on an import stream (e.g., operations such as LUT, crop, resize, etc.). The import results in a media node in the composition. [0104] As described above, intermediate results may be generated in the local cache and not written back to the centralized database 210. Accordingly, users on another machine may not have access to and cannot use such intermediate results. [0105] File export occurs when the user renders a composition by creating either a rendered result or a final result. With either a rendered result or a final result, the export results in a sequence of file(s) written outside of the media cache (e.g., in the centralized database 210). [0106] Compositions/dependency graphs within application 208 may need to be exported for archiving. In this regard, the composition may be stored in the file system in a structured manner along with the media files/image content.;
see also [0109] a library browser's contextual menu may be used to export the composition ( e.g., to a name and path defined by a project setting);
see also [0100] In view of the above, it may be understood that both media content (i.e., image data) and metadata relating to a composition may be stored in a centralized database; and [0123] At step 602, metadata for each element of the dependency graph is stored in a database (i.e., a centralized database), wherein the database is accessible across a network
to multiple users. Such metadata may include data relating to a node of the dependency graph, or data relating to a connection between two or more nodes of the dependency graph. By storing such metadata, the different modifications to the image data performed by multiple users may be tracked in an easy and efficient manner.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the time of the effective filing date to apply a distributed rendering pipeline with dependency metadata as taught by Vienneau to the system of Mullins since it was known in the art that content pipeline systems provide a method for tracking the processing of image data via a dependency graph is obtained where such a dependency graph is representative of a composition, e.g. the image processing performed on media content to generate an output or output clip where such image
processing may also be referred to as image rendering and where metadata for each element of the dependency graph is stored in a database (i.e., a centralized database), wherein the database is accessible across a network to multiple users where such metadata may include data relating to a node of the dependency graph, or data relating to a connection between two or more nodes of the dependency graph and whereby storing such metadata, th