DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed 12/02/2025.
Claims 15-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-8, 11, 21, 23 and 25 are amended.
Claims 1-14, and 21-26 are pending.
Claims 1-14, and 21-26 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues “the practical application of amended claim 1 is directed toward a computer- implemented system that improves the functioning of distributed transcoding platforms by orchestrating concurrent compute instances according to usage factors, SLA parameters, and encoder-licensing constraints, thereby enabling efficient and cost-aware execution of media- processing workflows. These improvements are rooted in the technical architecture described in the specification: a service-provider environment having compute instances, resource centers, encoder licenses, workflows, and a priority engine that together enable automated execution of transcoding operations in a manner unattainable through purely mental processes or generic data manipulation.” Examiner disagrees.
First, Applicant’s limitations recite receiving a request to process jobs, determining a usage factor and then executing the job. The receipt of a request is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Determining a usage factor is broad and does not require a computing device and can be done mentally, ex. determining priority associated with the jobs. Finally, executing the job, the job being for example, transcoding content, this can be done by a generic computing device that is capable of saving a file in a different file format. Applicant’s arguments appear focused on the content of the specification and not the language of the claim limitations. The rejection is maintained.
102
Vecchio discloses executing the one or more processing jobs including performing at least transcoding or encoding of the media content on the concurrently executing instances (Abstract; ¶ 21-29, 33-49)
Vecchio –The data center 103 can then down convert the source file to standard definition and deliver it to the IPTV provider 205…. By using, different data centers, combined files can be encoded at different locations. For example, an embedded advertisement can be encoded at one location while the content with which the ad will be combined can be encoded at another data center. The two can be combined just prior to delivery at a distribution data center… At decision block 503 the system checks to see if there is sufficient processing power (e.g. number of CPU's) available. If so, the system proceeds to step 504 and reserves the number of CPU's required. At step 505 those CPU's are flagged as unavailable to the rest of the system. At step 506 the transcoding operation is performed. At step 507 the operation is completed and the CPU's are released. (Abstract; ¶ 26, 38, 42, 43, 46)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11989585 (“Patent Document”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The independent and dependent claims of the Patent Document recites all the limitations of claims 1, 14 and 23 and their dependent claims of the instant application; however, claim 1 of the Patent Document differs since the Patent Document further recites additional claim limitations.
Instant Application
Patent Document - 11989585
A computer-implemented method, comprising: under the control of one or more computer systems configured with executable instructions,
receiving at least one request to execute one or more processing jobs on media content in a source format, the processing jobs to at least generate a version of the media content in a different format from the source format, the request being associated with one or more parameters for the processing jobs;
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining at least one first request to execute one or more transcoding jobs to transcode media content from a first format to a second format, the at least one first request associated with one or more parameters including at least one of (a) a time interval for completing the one or more transcoding jobs and (b) a value for performing the one or more transcoding jobs;
determining one or more usage factors associated with the one or more processing jobs; and
determining a relative weight to be applied to each of the one or more transcoding jobs, each relative weight based at least in part on the one or more parameters associated with the respective transcoding jobs and a server cost of one or more server resources under demand for the one or more transcoding jobs;
identifying a first number of compute instances comprising at least one compute instance for each of a plurality of transcoders capable of being provided by a set of computing resources, the at least one compute instance comprising the one or more server resources under demand for the one or more transcoding jobs, wherein each compute instance includes a processing capacity and memory;
allocating a first set of transcoding instances for the one or more transcoding jobs, the first set of transcoding instances selected from the first number of compute instances based at least in part on the relative weight associated with each of the one or more transcoding jobs, the demand for the one or more server resources, and the time interval for completing the one or more transcoding jobs, wherein each transcoding instance performs an execution of an individual transcoding job;
determining whether to delay, based at least in part on the demand for the one or more server resources, at least one of the one or more transcoding jobs allocated for the first set of transcoding instances;
executing the one or more processing jobs using a number of concurrently executing instances, the number being based at least in part on the usage factors and the one or more parameters, executing the one or more processing jobs including performing at least transcoding or encoding of the media content on the concurrently executing instances.
transcoding, concurrently, within the one or more parameters, the media content of the one or more transcoding jobs into a specific format using the first set of transcoding instances;
obtaining an at least one second request to execute the one or more transcoding jobs;
determining a second relative weight associated with the one or more transcoding jobs of the at least one second request;
allocating a second set of transcoding instances for the one or more transcoding jobs in the at least one second request, the second set of transcoding instances selected from the first number of compute instances based at least in part on the relative weight associated with each of the one or more transcoding jobs of the first at least one request and the at least one second request, the demand for the one or more server resources, and the time interval, the second set of transcoding instances differing at least in part from the first set of transcoding instances;
allocating additional transcoding instances than are needed for the time interval, wherein a licensing cost has already been incurred for the additional transcoding instances;
transcoding, concurrently, the media content of the one or more transcoding jobs in the at least one second request into a specific format using the second set of transcoding instances and the additional transcoding instances; and
The claims in the instant application are anticipated by the Patent Document. The claims are directed to the same subject matter, perform the same method steps and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be free to practice one of the claimed inventions without infringing upon the other inventions. The instant application claims are generic to the limitations in the Patent Document. Each limitation in the instant application is fully encompassed in the Patent Document claims.
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 1-14, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (101 Analysis: Step 1). Even if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (101 Analysis: Step 2a(Prong 1), and if so, Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. (101 Analysis: Step 2a (Prong 2). If additional elements does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception, claim still requires an evaluation of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. If the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (there is an inventive concept in the claim), the claim is eligible. If the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim), the claim is ineligible. (101 Analysis: Step 2b).
The 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter: a) Mathematical concepts b) Certain methods of organizing human activity and c) Mental processes
Analysis
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 8 is directed to a machine and claim 23 is directed to an article of manufacture.
Step 2a.1– Identifying an Abstract Idea
The claims recite the steps of “receiving … request … determining…usage factors… and executing…jobs….” The recited limitations fall within mental process grouping of abstract ideas, specifically, observation and evaluation. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.
Step 2a.2 – Identifying a Practical Application
The claim does not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recitation of a computer does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as the computer is automating the mental process.
Accordingly, even in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment do not amount to practical applications. The claim in directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim limitations recite “receiving … request … determining…usage factors… and executing…jobs” are not additional elements and they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. This is also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Therefore, when considering the elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible.
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of a mental process as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a network, and/or merely uses a network as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 21, 22 and 24-26 discuss functions in more descriptive detail of the steps geared toward the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
Claims 6 and 13 provide descriptive language surrounding the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Therefore, based on case law precedent, the claims are claiming subject matter similar to concepts already identified by the courts as dealing with abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561, U.S. 593, 611 (2010)).
The claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to another technology or technical filed; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 USC 101 based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 21, 22 and 24-26 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-14, and 21-26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Vecchio et al. (US 20100131674) (“Vecchio”).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 23, Vecchio discloses under the control of one or more computer systems configured with executable instructions (¶ 69-77),
receiving at least one request to execute one or more processing jobs on media content in a source format, the processing jobs to at least generate a version of the media content in a different format from the source format, the request being associated with one or more parameters for the processing jobs (Abstract; ¶ 31-37, 43-47, 51, 52, 55-60, 66; claim 6);
Vecchio – The file is provided via content provider network 202 to data center 102. …The system routes the source file to data center 103 which is close to the IPTV provider 205. Once it arrives at data center 103 it can be passed directly to the provider as one of the required formats at the destination. The data center 103 can then down convert the source file to standard definition and deliver it to the IPTV provider 205. …At step 401 content is acquired by the system. As noted above, this content can be amateur or professional, and may be in any of multiple formats and styles. The ultimate destination for the content is determined by the content provider and the service provider. The content may be intended to be used individually and/or as part of a package of content. (¶ 32, 45, 46)
determining one or more usage factors associated with the one or more processing jobs; and (¶ 22, 33-38, 51-60, 62-67);
Vecchio –At step 402 the content is analyzed to determine if any optimization of video or audio is required for the intended use of the content. At step 403 the content is optimized for its intended use and destination…In some cases, the content will need to be transcoded to one or more end formats depending on the service provider. The transfer time and transcoding requirements affect system resource usage and capability, so the system uses a management system and decision engine to optimize the system resources and transfer management of the content. (¶ 33, 34)
executing the one or more processing jobs using a number of concurrently executing instances, the number being based at least in part on the usage factors and the one or more parameters, executing the one or more processing jobs including performing at least transcoding or encoding of the media content on the concurrently executing instances (Abstract; ¶ 21-29, 33-49, 52-67)
Vecchio – The system is a distributed video transcoding system that allows content to be transformed from one digital format to another close to the ingest and delivery points to minimize the time and cost of the transfer between end points. .. Based on this analysis, a variety of video adjustments and filters may be applied to optimize the content for presentation on television. To speed the optimization process and to ensure consistency, source-based optimization templates can be applied to content from specific sources or providers. Adjustments and filters can include color correction, macro block smoothing, sharpening, re-scaling, noise reduction, brightness, gamma, contrast, and others… Once a job is begun, the required CPUs are reserved by that job. This allows the system to incorporate the best of breed available transcoders and allow seamless upgrades as technology evolves…The data center 103 can then down convert the source file to standard definition and deliver it to the IPTV provider 205…. By using, different data centers, combined files can be encoded at different locations. For example, an embedded advertisement can be encoded at one location while the content with which the ad will be combined can be encoded at another data center. The two can be combined just prior to delivery at a distribution data center. (Abstract; ¶ 26, 38, 42, 46)
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 25, Vecchio discloses wherein executing the one or more processing jobs further includes: determining the number of concurrently executing instances to allocate to the one or more processing jobs in order to reduce the usage factors while satisfying the one or more parameters (¶ 43-46, 63-65).
Claim Interpretation – “in order to reduce the usage factors while satisfying the one or more parameters” recites a result and therefore has not patentable weight ( Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” See MPEP 2111.04
Regarding claims 3,10 and 26, Vecchio discloses wherein the one or more parameters specify a maximum time interval to perform the one or more processing jobs, and wherein executing the one or more processing jobs further includes: minimizing the number of the concurrently executing instances to perform the one or more processing jobs within the maximum time interval indicated in the one or more parameters (¶ 43-49, 51-60, 63, 64).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Vecchio discloses wherein each instance is specific to a user, wherein executing the one or more processing jobs further includes: determining that the user has one or more additional instances available for which the usage factors have already been incurred; and assigning the one or more additional instances to perform the one or more processing jobs of the user (¶ 33-49, 52-67).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Vecchio discloses wherein the request to execute the one or more processing jobs on the media content is received from a content publisher to a service provider, the service provider providing a multi-tenant computing environment of shared resources that are capable of transcoding the media content (Abstract; ¶ 37-43, 47-49, 51-60).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Vecchio discloses wherein executing the one or more processing jobs further include performing one or more of: transcoding the media content from a first format into a second format; transmuxing the media content; digital watermarking the media content; segmenting the media content; applying access controls to the media content; adding meta data to the media content; inserting advertisements into the media content; translating the media content into a different language; transcribing the media content; changing bit rates of the media content; sequencing the media content; or adding audio to the media content (Abstract; ¶ 21-26, 29-38, 46-49).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Vecchio discloses wherein executing the one or more processing jobs further includes: delaying execution of at least one of the one or more processing jobs based at least in part on the one or more usage factors associated with the one or more processing jobs (Abstract; ¶ 43-49, 51-67).
Regarding claim 21, Vecchio discloses wherein executing the one or more processing jobs further includes: assigning additional concurrently executing instances for which the usage factors have already been incurred in order to complete the processing job faster than a time interval specified in the one or more parameters; and delaying a result of the one or more processing jobs being reported to a user that requested the one or more processing jobs until the end of the time interval associated with the request (¶ 43-49, 51-67).
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Vecchio discloses wherein executing the one or more processing jobs further includes: computing a relative weight based at least in part on the one or more usage factors, the relative weight used in prioritizing the one or more processing jobs; and determining the number of concurrently executing instances to execute the one or more processing jobs, based at least in part on the relative weight (Abstract; ¶ 43-49, 51-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Application Family (US 9483785, 9510033, 9710307, 10191954, 9380326, 9058645, 9497496, 10636081, etc.)
Moorthi et al. (US 20120131591)
Middleton et al. (US 20140359092)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ILSE I IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 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, NEHA H PATEL can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/ILSE I IMMANUEL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699