DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/1/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-10 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1 and 10 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the cloud adapter limitation have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the Examiner is incorrect that Orban discloses the first and second cloud adapter. The examiner respectfully disagrees. During patent examination, the claims are examined using “the broadest reasonable interpretation” standard. Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified (MPEP 2111). In this case, the claims simply recite a first cloud adapter and a second cloud adapter without defining what these elements are and what they do. Orban teaches a cloud server including containers within PODs. Within the cloud server, the containers within each POD may each include an application, such as a virtualized application (par. 30 and Fig. 4). This demonstrates a first and second POD, each including a container with an application in the cloud server. Applications by definition input data, adapt data, and output data. Therefore, Orban’s virtualized application in the cloud meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “cloud adapter”.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the new limitations with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 20, recites “file transfer to and from said external server are”. The examiner recommends to replace “transfer” with “transfers” to improve grammar.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While Orban teaches the use of a localhost and a port, Orban does not explicitly disclose said first cloud adapter automatically forwards said one of said files to a localhost and port. None of the other cited references explicitly disclose this limitation, and it would not have been obvious to combine the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orban et al. (US 2021/0160090) in view of Santos et al. (US 2024/0370581) and further in view of Small et al. (US 2020/0287748).
Regarding claim 1, Orban teaches: A cable distribution system [A system providing cable data (abstract)] comprising:
(a) a head end connected to a plurality of customer devices through a transmission network that includes a remote fiber node that converts received data to analog data suitable to be provided on a coaxial cable for said plurality of customer devices, where said head end includes at least one server each of which includes a respective processor [The system includes a head end connected through a network to customer cable modems and/or set top boxes. The network includes a remote fiber node 280 that converts data to analog for transmission over RF including coaxial (abstract, par. 3-4 and 16-17, Fig. 2). At least one server, such as a COTS server is included having a processor (par. 22 and 29, Fig. 4)]
(b) a first vCore instantiated on one of said servers of said head end configured to provide data plane services to selected ones of said plurality of customer devices through said transmission network, said first vCore instantiated within a first container in a first POD [the vCore instance is preferably implemented in software operating on a COTS server and is implemented within a container 410 in a POD 430. The vCore is assigned a limited number of groups of customers and includes data plane software for transfer of data (par. 32-34 and 39, Fig. 4 and 5)]
(c) a first cloud adapter instantiated within a second container within said first POD [The COTS server may be a cloud server including a second container within the POD. The second container including a virtualized application (par. 19 and 30, Fig. 4)]
(d) a second vCore instantiated on one of said servers of said head end configured to provide data plane services to selected ones of said plurality of customer devices through said transmission network, said second vCore instantiated within a third container in a second POD [The server may include multiple PODs 530, each including a vCore instance implemented within a container 410. The vCore is assigned a limited number of groups of customers and includes data plane software for transfer of data (par. 32-34 and 39, Fig. 4 and 5)]
(e) a second cloud adapter instantiated within a fourth container within said second POD [The COTS server may be a cloud server including a second container within the second POD. The second container including a virtualized application (par. 19 and 30, Fig. 4)]
(f) a management system that provides management services for said first vCore and said second vCore to facilitate data transfers between an external server and each of said first vCore and said second vCore [At least one management NIC 510 and management network 512 manages data traffic, with data being transferred to remote physical devices, such as a server (par. 21 and 44-45, Fig. 5)].
Orban does not explicitly disclose: said first POD further comprising a logical mount between said first cloud adapter and said first vCore; said second POD further comprising a second logical mount between said second cloud adapter and said second vCore; the data transfers are file transfers, wherein file transfer to and from said external server are based upon a file transfer protocol, wherein file transfers for each of said first and second vCores to and from respective said first and second cloud adapters are not based upon said file transfer protocol, wherein file transfers between said first cloud adapter and said first vCore are enabled by said first logical mount, and file transfers between said second cloud adapter and said second vCore are enabled by said second logical mount.
Santos teaches: said first POD further comprising a logical mount between said first cloud adapter and said first vCore; said second POD further comprising a second logical mount between said second cloud adapter and said second vCore [Pods each have containers (par. 26-27, Fig. 1). Persistent volumes are mounted and these mounts are published to all containers in the pod (par. 49 and 110, Fig. 2 and 5c)]
the data transfers are file transfers [a file system that handles data access and file storage (abstract, Fig. 3 and 7)],
wherein file transfers between said first cloud adapter and said first vCore are enabled by said first logical mount, and file transfers between said second cloud adapter and said second vCore are enabled by said second logical mount [The mounts provide access by the containers in the pod to the files of the extended file system (abstract, par. 49 and 110, Fig. 1-3)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Orban and Santos before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable distribution system of Orban by incorporating the teaching of Santos to include a logical mount between said first cloud adapter and said first vCore, a second logical mount between said second cloud adapter and said second vCore, the data transfers are file transfers, and file transfers between said first cloud adapter and said first vCore are enabled by said first logical mount, and file transfers between said second cloud adapter and said second vCore are enabled by said second logical mount. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow each container to access the files stored by the system (Santos – abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Orban and Santos in obtaining the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Santos does not explicitly disclose: file transfer to and from said external server are based upon a file transfer protocol, wherein file transfers for each of said first and second vCores to and from respective said first and second cloud adapters are not based upon said file transfer protocol.
Small teaches: file transfer to and from said external server are based upon a file transfer protocol, wherein file transfers for each of said first and second vCores to and from respective said first and second cloud adapters are not based upon said file transfer protocol [When a new data file is detected, a copy of the data file is sent from SBC using a network interface 12 to an external cloud storage system 10 configured as a Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) server (par. 45-46, Fig. 1-2 and 6-7). The file is also transferred from SBC using a network interface 14 to an archive using SMB protocol (par. 44 and 50-51, Fig. 1-3 and 6-7)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Orban, Santos, and Small before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable distribution system of Orban and Santos by incorporating the teaching of Small such that file transfer to and from said external server are based upon a file transfer protocol, wherein file transfers for each of said first and second vCores to and from respective said first and second cloud adapters are not based upon said file transfer protocol. The motivation for doing so would have been to securely store the files in an external storage system, while maintaining isolation between the file generating device and the external server to enhance security and performance of the generating device (Small – par. 21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Orban and Santos with Small to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Orban, Santos, and Small teach the cable distribution system of claim 1; Orban and Small further teach: a transfer of one of said files from said first vCore is based upon automatically detecting the creation of said one of said files [Orban – vCore (par. 34). Small – monitoring for a new file by periodically polling and detecting the new file. Then sending a copy of the file to the external cloud storage system (par. 45, Fig. 1)].
Regarding claim 3, Orban and Small teach the cable distribution system of claim 2; Small further teaches: said one of said files is stored in a predetermined location on said external server [the path (i.e., directory) to upload the files to on the external cloud storage system 10 (par. 46 and 50, Fig. 1)].
Regarding claim 4, Orban and Small teach the cable distribution system of claim 3; Small further teaches: said predetermined location is configurable by an operator [the destination path (i.e., directory) to upload the files to on the external cloud storage system 10 can be set in a configuration file 16 (par. 34, 46, and 50, Fig. 1 and 8)].
Regarding claim 5, Orban and Small teach the cable distribution system of claim 4; Small further teaches: said first vCore does not support FTP [the data generation device may be part of a non-networked system that has no means of communication with the network including the SFTP (par 21 and 46, Fig. 1)].
Regarding claim 10, Orban teaches: A cable distribution system [A system providing cable data (abstract)] comprising:
(a) a head end connected to a plurality of customer devices through a transmission network that includes a remote fiber node that converts received data to analog data suitable to be provided on a coaxial cable for said plurality of customer devices, where said head end includes at least one server each of which includes a respective processor [The system includes a head end connected through a network to customer cable modems and/or set top boxes. The network includes a remote fiber node 280 that converts data to analog for transmission over RF including coaxial (abstract, par. 3-4 and 16-17, Fig. 2). At least one server, such as a COTS server is included having a processor (par. 22 and 29, Fig. 4)]
(b) a first virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) instantiated on one of said servers of said head end configured to provide data plane services to selected ones of said plurality of customer devices through said transmission network, said first virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) instantiated within a first container in a first POD [the vCore instance is preferably implemented in software operating on a COTS server and is implemented within a container 410 in a POD 430. vCores are a software implementation of Cable Modem Termination Systems (CMTS). The vCore is assigned a limited number of groups of customers and includes data plane software for transfer of data (par. 4, 32-34 and 39, Fig. 4 and 5)]
(c) a first cloud adapter instantiated within a second container within said first POD [The COTS server may be a cloud server including a second container within the POD. The second container including a virtualized application (par. 19 and 30, Fig. 4)]
(d) a second virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) instantiated on one of said servers of said head end configured to provide data plane services to selected ones of said plurality of customer devices through said transmission network, said second virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) instantiated within a third container in a second POD [The server may include multiple PODs 530, each including a vCore instance implemented within a container 410. vCores are a software implementation of Cable Modem Termination Systems (CMTS). The vCore is assigned a limited number of groups of customers and includes data plane software for transfer of data (par. 4, 32-34 and 39, Fig. 4 and 5)]
(e) a second cloud adapter instantiated within a fourth container within said second POD [The COTS server may be a cloud server including a second container within the second POD. The second container including a virtualized application (par. 19 and 30, Fig. 4)]
(f) a management system that provides management services for said first virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) and said second virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) to facilitate data transfers between an external server and each of said first virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) and said second virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) [At least one management NIC 510 and management network 512 manages data traffic, with data being transferred to remote physical devices, such as a server (par. 21 and 44-45, Fig. 5)].
Orban does not explicitly disclose: said first POD further comprising a logical mount between said first cloud adapter and said first vCore; said second POD further comprising a second logical mount between said second cloud adapter and said second vCore; the data transfers are file transfers, wherein a file transfer of a first file to and from said external server to a respective one of said first cloud adapter of said first virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) and said second cloud adapter of said second virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) is based upon a first file transfer protocol, wherein a file transfer of said first file from said respective one of said first cloud adapter of said first virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) and said second cloud adapter of said second virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) to and from said first virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) and said second virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) is based upon a second file transfer protocol, where said first file transfer protocol uses a different protocol than said second file transfer protocol, wherein file transfers between said first cloud adapter and said first vCore are enabled by said first logical mount, and file transfers between said second cloud adapter and said second vCore are enabled by said second logical mount.
Santos teaches: said first POD further comprising a logical mount between said first cloud adapter and said first vCore; said second POD further comprising a second logical mount between said second cloud adapter and said second vCore [Pods each have containers (par. 26-27, Fig. 1). Persistent volumes are mounted and these mounts are published to all containers in the pod (par. 49 and 110, Fig. 2 and 5c)]
the data transfers are file transfers [a file system that handles data access and file storage (abstract, Fig. 3 and 7)],
wherein file transfers between said first cloud adapter and said first vCore are enabled by said first logical mount, and file transfers between said second cloud adapter and said second vCore are enabled by said second logical mount [The mounts provide access by the containers in the pod to the files of the extended file system (abstract, par. 49 and 110, Fig. 1-3)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Orban and Santos before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable distribution system of Orban by incorporating the teaching of Santos to include a logical mount between said first cloud adapter and said first vCore, a second logical mount between said second cloud adapter and said second vCore, the data transfers are file transfers, and file transfers between said first cloud adapter and said first vCore are enabled by said first logical mount, and file transfers between said second cloud adapter and said second vCore are enabled by said second logical mount. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow each container to access the files stored by the system (Santos – abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Orban and Santos in obtaining the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Santos does not explicitly disclose: wherein a file transfer of a first file to and from said external server to a respective one of said first cloud adapter of said first virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) and said second cloud adapter of said second virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) is based upon a first file transfer protocol, wherein a file transfer of said first file from said respective one of said first cloud adapter of said first virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) and said second cloud adapter of said second virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) to and from said first virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) and said second virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) is based upon a second file transfer protocol, where said first file transfer protocol uses a different protocol than said second file transfer protocol.
Small teaches: wherein a file transfer of a first file to and from said external server to a respective one of said first cloud adapter of said first virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) and said second cloud adapter of said second virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) is based upon a first file transfer protocol [When a new data file is detected, a copy of the data file is sent from SBC using a network interface 12 to an external cloud storage system 10 configured as a Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) server (par. 45-46, Fig. 1-2 and 6-7)],
wherein a file transfer of said first file from said respective one of said first cloud adapter of said first virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) and said second cloud adapter of said second virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) to and from said first virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) and said second virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) is based upon a second file transfer protocol, where said first file transfer protocol uses a different protocol than said second file transfer protocol [the file is also transferred from SBC using a network interface 14 to an archive using SMB protocol (par. 44 and 50-51, Fig. 1-3 and 6-7)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Orban, Santos, and Small before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable distribution system of Orban and Santos by incorporating the teaching of Small such that a file transfer of a first file to and from said external server is based upon a first file transfer protocol and a file transfer of said first file to and from said first vCore or said second vCore of Orban is based upon a second different file transfer protocol. The motivation for doing so would have been to securely store the files in an external storage system, while maintaining isolation between the file generating device and the external server to enhance security and performance of the generating device (Small – par. 21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Orban and Santos with Small in obtaining the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orban et al. (US 2021/0160090) in view of Santos et al. (US 2024/0370581), further in view of Small et al. (US 2020/0287748), and further in view of Morton et al. (WO 2015/161357).
Regarding claim 6, Orban, Santos, and Small teach the cable distribution system of claim 2; Orban, Santos, and Small do not explicitly disclose: said first vCore logs a message upon said creation of said one of said files.
Morton teaches: said first vCore logs a message upon said creation of said one of said files [generating log data, such as a log file including a media file name, when the media file is output (par. 79 and 94, Fig. 8)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Orban, Santos, Small, and Morton before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable distribution system of Orban, Santos, and Small by incorporating the teaching of Morton such that said first vCore logs a message upon said creation of said one of said files. The motivation for doing so would have been to keep a record of each media file that is output, such as to generate reports and/or analytic data (Morton – par. 79 and 81). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Orban, Santos, and Small with Morton to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Orban, Santos, Small, and Morton teach the cable distribution system of claim 6; Morton further teaches: said first cloud adapter automatically parses said message in response to said first vCore logging said message [executing a script to fetch the log data and process it by parsing (par. 80-81 and 101-102)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Boyd whose telephone number is (571)270-0676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm PST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALEXANDER BOYD/Examiner, Art Unit 2424