DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 19, 2025 has been entered.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The Provisional Application # 63/616,179 filed on December 29, 2023.
Status of claims
Claims 1-17 are pending, of which claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are amended.
No claims are newly added.
No claims are canceled.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yellin et al. US 2021/0329091 A1 (hereinafter ‘Yellin’) in view of Feng et al. US 2007/0198504 A1 (hereinafter ‘Feng’) as applied, and further in view of Francesco Lacapra et al. US 2014/0082145 A1 (hereinafter ‘Lacapra’).
As per claim 1, Yellin disclose, A computer-implemented method (Yellin: paragraph 0059: disclose a method running on a processor, which is a computer) for determining authoritativeness (Yellin: paragraph 0201: disclose indication ‘determining’ content freshness ‘authoritativeness’) of an object in a cache (Yellin: paragraph 0041: disclose content ‘object’ to the user’s device cache), comprising:
receiving (Yellin: paragraph 0067: disclose input request for content, which is equated to requesting device receiving the content), with one or more processors (Yellin: paragraph 0043: disclose multiple processors), a request for an object maintained at long-term storage (LTS) system (Yellin: paragraph 0132: disclose prefetch the content from cloud processing unit, where cloud is equated to a long term storage) and associated with a hierarchical directory (Yellin: paragraph 1060: disclose importance hierarchy, which examiner equates to hierarchical directory. Examiner also would discuss this limitation in view of secondary art below);
retrieving (Yellin: paragraph 0067: disclose prefetch ‘retrieve’ the content), with the one or more processors (Yellin: paragraph 0043: disclose multiple processors), the object from the LTS system (Yellin: paragraph 0132: disclose prefetch the content from cloud processing unit, where cloud is equated to a long term storage);
storing, with the one or more processors, the object in the cache such that the object is associated with metadata indicating (i) a storage time at which the storage occurred and (ii) whether the object is authoritative (Yellin: paragraph 0210: disclose freshness metrics ‘metadata’ indicate how much a content item have changed relative to previous versions and prefetch policy, which is similar to being authoritative);
detecting (Yellin: paragraph 0156: disclose detect of modifying prefetched content), with the one or more processors, a stimulus to determine whether the object is authoritative (Yellin: paragraph 0156: disclose is modifying prefetched content and paragraph 0155: disclose timing of prefetch are possible);
responsive to detecting the stimulus, determining, with the one or more processors, whether the object is authoritative by comparing the cache storage time to a cache freshness interval (Yellin: paragraph 0210: disclose freshness metrics ‘metadata’ indicate how much a content item have changed relative to previous versions and prefetch policy, which is similar to being authoritative), and
responsive to determining that the object in the cache is non-authoritative, setting, with the one or more processors, the metadata(Yellin: paragraph 0210: disclose freshness metrics ‘metadata’ indicate how much a content item have changed relative to previous versions and prefetch policy, which is similar to being authoritative) indicating whether the object is authoritative (Yellin: paragraph 0211: disclose the freshness metric might indicate that the update is minor ‘authoritative’) to indicate that the object is not authoritative (Yellin: paragraph 0210: freshness metric to determine whether to present prefetched content that is not completely up to date).
It is noted, however, Yellin did not specifically detail the aspects of
wherein the cache freshness interval is derived based upon a depth of the object in the hierarchical directory, and
objects at a greater depth from a depth level member in the hierarchical directory are associated with a shorter cache freshness interval than objects at a lesser depth from the depth level member in the hierarchical directory as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, Feng achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
wherein the cache freshness interval is derived based upon a depth of the object in the hierarchical directory (Feng: paragraph 0015: disclose determining importance ‘freshness interval’ of web pages that factors in the level or depth of the web page ‘object’ within a web site hierarchy. Examiner argues that the importance is replacing cache freshness interval in the prior art teaching to get the resultant invention), and
objects at a greater depth from a depth level member in the hierarchical directory are associated with a shorter cache freshness interval than objects at a lesser depth from the depth level member in the hierarchical directory (Feng: paragraph 0015: disclose an outgoing link on a high-level ‘lesser depth’ web page may be considered a more authoritative recommendation of a web page than an outgoing link on a low-level ‘higher depth’ web page to the same web page and Fig. 1B and Fig. 1C).
The motivation for doing so would have been to accurately assess the importance of web pages (Feng: paragraph 0007).
It is noted, however, neither Yellin nor Feng specifically detail the aspects of
hierarchical directory in a file system;
indicative of a duration the object is considered authoritative as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, Lacapra achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
hierarchical directory in a file system (Lacapra: paragraph 0038: disclose a hierarchical file/directory structure that stores the basic attributes for files, directories and symbolic links);
indicative of a duration the object is considered authoritative (Lacapra: paragraph 0041: disclose the authoritative entity for the state of the hypervolume it manages and thus carries out a primary role in the hyperserver and examiner understand on the limitation, which cites “duration of the object”. However, examiner argues that the prior art teaches that, at a given time, is the authoritative entity which is equated to duration of the object).
The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve desired levels of speed, redundancy, and availability under projected load conditions (Lacapra: paragraph 0007).
Yellin, Lacapra and Feng are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and both from the same “problem-solving area”. Namely, they are both from the field of “ Content Systems”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Yellin, Lacapra and Feng because they are both directed to content systems and both are from the same field of endeavor. The skilled person would therefore regard it as a normal option to include the restriction features of Feng and Lacapra with the method described by Yellin in order to solve the problem posed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Feng and Lacapra with Yellin to obtain the invention as specified in instant claim 1.
As per claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Yellin disclose, wherein one or more objects at a first depth in the hierarchical directory have a longer cache freshness interval than one or more objects at a second depth, where the first depth is less than the second depth (Yellin: paragraph 0210: disclose the freshness metrics receiving higher prefetch priority score and lower score based on prefetch policy, which examiner equates to this limitations since the prior art teaches of having higher priority score have less freshness interval than the content with lower priority score).
As per claim 3, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above. In addition, Yellin disclose, wherein the one or more objects at the first depth have the same cache freshness interval (Yellin: paragraph 0220: disclose the rank between 1 and 5, therefore the content of prefetch with rank 1 would have the same freshness interval).
As per claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Yellin disclose, wherein one or more objects in the hierarchical directory at a third depth greater than or equal to a maximum depth limit have the same cache freshness interval as one or more objects in the hierarchical directory at a fourth depth, where the third depth is less than fourth depth (Yellin: paragraph 0210: disclose the freshness metrics receiving higher prefetch priority score and lower score based on prefetch policy, which examiner equates to this limitations since the prior art teaches of having higher priority score have less freshness interval than the content with lower priority score).
As per claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Yellin disclose, receiving, with the one or more processors, a user input defining the cache freshness interval (Yellin: paragraph 0177: disclose time limits (relative or absolute) during which it is permissible to display a content item).
As per claim 6, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Yellin disclose, wherein detecting the stimulus to determine whether the object is authoritative comprises: detecting, with the one or more processors, a request to interact with the object (Yellin: paragraph 0328: disclose user is currently interacting with the device).
As per claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 6 above. In addition, Yellin disclose, responsive to setting the metadata indicating whether the object is authoritative to indicate that the object is not authoritative, retrieving, with the one or more processors, a current version of the object from the LTS system (Yellin: paragraph 0207: disclose correct versions of the content item and catalog and allow the prefetch policy, which is set in the cloud or refined at the device).
As per claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Yellin disclose, wherein detecting the stimulus to determine whether the object is authoritative comprises: executing, with the one or more processors, a crawler application configured to evaluate authoritativeness for objects in the cache; and detecting, with the one or more processors, that the crawler application is evaluating the object (Yellin: paragraph 0046: disclose content items by crawling one or more of the content sources and paragraph 0649: disclose continuously crawling content at each content sources to check for updates).
As per claim 9, Yellin disclose, A system (Yellin: paragraph 0044: disclose cloud-based infrastructure system) for determining authoritativeness of an object in a cache, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory (Yellin: paragraph 1299: disclose non-transitory tangible media) memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: remaining limitations in this claim 9 are similar to the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects these remaining limitations under the same rationale as limitations rejected under claim 1.
As per claim 10, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 2. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 10 limitations under the same rationale as claim 2.
As per claim 11, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 3. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 11 limitations under the same rationale as claim 3.
As per claim 12, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 4. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 12 limitations under the same rationale as claim 4.
As per claim 13, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 5. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 13 limitations under the same rationale as claim 5.
As per claim 14, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 6. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 14 limitations under the same rationale as claim 6.
As per claim 15, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 7. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 15 limitations under the same rationale as claim 7.
As per claim 16, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 8. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 16 limitations under the same rationale as claim 8.
As per claim 17, Yellin disclose, One or more non-transitory computer readable media (Yellin: paragraph 1299: disclose non-transitory tangible media) storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to at least: remaining limitations in this claim 17 are similar to the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects these remaining limitations under the same rationale as limitations rejected under claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection using new prior art Feng et al. US 2007/0198504 A1 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument of prior art not teaching the amendment “objects at a greater depth from a depth level member in the hierarchical directory are associated with a shorter cache freshness interval than objects at a lesser depth from the depth level member in the hierarchical directory”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. US 2018/0176663 A1 disclose “CONFIGURABLE IOT DEVICE DATA COLLECTION”
US Pub. US 2021/0073237 A1 disclose “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATIC DIFFICULTY LEVEL ESTIMATION”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3836. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. 8am - 4pm, EST.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159