DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-18 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsen (US 2018/0034892) and in view of Du (US 2013/0091188) and in view of Chadwick (US 2023/0011518).
Re Claim 1, Olsen discloses a method, comprising:
identifying a multipart upload of a content object from a user system to a cloud storage system ([0028]-[0029], Parallel uploading (multi-part uploading) enables upload of objects in parts to object storage. [0031], Object storage includes cloud storage);
receiving a request to access at least a portion of the content object ([0021], return correctly ordered file data when requested);
determining whether the multipart upload has completed ([0026], acknowledge if the parallel upload has completed);
upon determining that the multipart upload has completed, providing a response to the request from a fully completed upload copy of the content object at the cloud storage system ([0021], [0028], return correctly ordered file data when requested. Parallel uploading is a 3 step process, 1) initiate the upload, 2) upload the object parts, 3) complete the parallel upload. Upon receiving the upload request, provide access to the object once the object is uploaded and stored). Olsen does not disclose, however Du discloses upon determining that the multipart update has not yet completed, checking against a shadow structure to determine whether a response can be provided from a partial upload copy of the content object at the cloud storage system ([0004], partial access to the cloud server can be provided when the folder has not been completely uploaded or to the folder at the cloud server when the folder has been at least partially uploaded).
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 Olsen’s multi-part upload with Du’s multi-part upload to include partial access to the cloud. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by allowing the users to have partial access to the objects that have already been uploaded).
Olsen and Du does not disclose, however Chadwick discloses wherein a byte range is tracked for a part number within the content object, and the byte range is generated using at least one of the following techniques: (a) estimating the byte range based upon a first part byte range; or (b) estimating the byte range based upon multiple byte ranges for multiple prior parts that have been uploaded ([0013], discloses distribution of the video by estimating a first, second, third, fourth range of bytes based on the set of video features and target rendition based on the maximum expected size. [0043]-[0046], the system trains the part size distribution model which includes the training of distribution of actual part sizes. Once trained, the system can execute the part size distribution model during the upload).
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 Olsen and Du’s multi-part upload with Chadwick’s multi-part upload to include estimating the part size for distribution for the video segment based on the set of video features by the maximum expected size. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by predicting the byterange of the part thereby creating consistency and limit playback error.
Re claim 2, Olsen discloses wherein the shadow structure tracks a list of part numbers that has already been uploaded ([0042]- [0045] parallel uploading uses byte ranges and temporary part order manifest to determine when a parallel upload session has completed).
Re claim 3, Olsen discloses wherein the shadow structure tracks the byte range for a part number ([0041]-[0045], GUID identifier of the objected is stored in the temporary part order manifest along with the byte location. Client request is made read the data byte range before the parallel upload session being completed).
Re claim 4, Olsen discloses wherein the byte range is generated using a user hint ([0045], client request is made to read the data byte range before the parallel upload session).
Re claim 5, Olsen discloses wherein the request specifies the part number ([0045], client requests to read the data byte range), the part number is checked against the shadow structure to determine whether a part corresponding to the part number has been uploaded already, and if already uploaded then the part is provided in response to the request ([0051]-[0052], requested byte ranges exist in the temporary part order manifest, any matching object parts that match with the byte range is returned to the client application).
Re claim 6, Olsen discloses wherein the request specifies a byte offset or byte range ([0045], client requests to read the data byte range), the byte offset or byte range is checked against the shadow structure to determine whether a part corresponding to the byte offset or byte range has been uploaded already, and if already uploaded then the byte offset or byte range is provided in response to the request ([0051]-[0052], requested byte ranges exist in the temporary part order manifest, any matching object parts that match with the byte range is returned to the client application).
Re claims 7-18, they are similar to claims 1-6 and therefore are rejected for the same reasons above.
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 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