DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on March 26th 2024, in which claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/26/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: S1011-S013, S1021-1023, and S1031-1032 (see pg. 7-10 as filed, or paragraphs 65, 69-70, 79, 82, 84 and 93-97 published). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 301, 302, 303, 304 (Fig. 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a distributed information module”, “a routing information table calculation module”, “a forwarding information table generation module”, and “a video distribution module” in claim 8.
The term “module” is generic, all the limitations are recited as “module, configured to …” therefore they recite functional language. All of the words preceding “module” are merely descriptive of the function and do not recite any specific or sufficient structure to perform the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “a distributed information module”, “a routing information table calculation module”, “a forwarding information table generation module”, and “a video distribution module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as explained above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In this case, the limitations clearly map to Fig. 3 and pg. 11 of the specification (also see paragraphs 39-42 of the published application). However, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Figure 3 only shows “black boxes” and pg. 11 simply repeats the claimed function language. For computer implemented means plus function claims, MPEP 2181 requires “the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite”. Black boxes and a mere restatement of the claim language are not an algorithm. MPEP 2181 states “there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function” and “merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Because the claim is a means plus function claim and is indefinite under 112(b), it necessarily lacks written description, see MPEP 2163.03(VI) and MPEP 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang US 10,693,791 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses: a video distribution control method (software-defined network for content distribution – abstract; CDNs are used for providing media and videos – col. 2 ln. 45-54) comprising:
distributing distributed information, wherein the distributed information comprises link information and video request information (receive request and distribute information including link/path data and request information, e.g. reservation request for resource – Fig. 1 step 100, col. 4 ln. 56-66, col. 9 ln. 5-14);
calculating a routing information table according to the link information and the video request information (generate routing table – abstract, Fig. 1 step 101, col. 3 ln. 60; generating routing table includes “path policy” data which is equivalent to “link information” under the BRI – see col 4 ln. 4-18; the table is generated subsequent to the request as shown by Fig. 1, so it is calculated according to the video request information as well; also see col. 9 ln. 15-17);
generating a forwarding information table according to the routing information table (generate forwarding table according to the content routing table – abstract, Fig. 1 step 101, col. 3 ln. 62-63 and col. 9 ln. 17-21); and
performing video distribution according to the forwarding information table (distribute content according to tables – Fig. 1 step 102, col. 4 ln. 1-3 and col. 8 ln. 5-34).
Regarding claim 8, it is a means plus function claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1. Currently, the scope of the claim is indefinite as discussed above. However, since the features appear to correspond to the limitations recited by claim 1, examiner believes the rejection of claim 1 is pertinent. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, it is a system claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1. Wang discloses a system comprising at least one processor and memory to perform the method (CDN requires servers/hardware – col. 3 ln. 4-10; also see claim 9 of Wang which explicitly discloses a system comprising “memory and a processor”). Thus, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, it is a non-transitory medium claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1; thus it is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kwon et al. US 11,646962 B1.
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses generating the distributed information; and distributed the distributed information among [devices] (receive request and distribute information including link/path data and request information, e.g. reservation request for resource – Fig. 1 step 100, col. 4 ln. 56-66, col. 9 ln. 5-14).
Wang does not explicitly disclose a distance vector protocol but this is extremely common and-well known in the art (e.g. RIP). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to use a distance vector protocol when generating routing/forwarding tables. This is merely the combination of a well-known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Wang does not disclose setting initial states of clusters for video distribution for this is taught by Kwon as a routing system that communicates cluster status (see col. 2 ln. 23-24 “clustering status”, Fig. 5B). Kwon explicitly discloses setting initial cluster state (select cluster status – col. 3 ln. 8-15). Kwon also teaches using distance vector (col. 2 ln. 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with the cluster state/status taught by Kwon for the purpose of routing content. Kwon teaches this avoids traditional route setup delays and costs (col. 1 ln. 54-65) and provides increased efficiency from the cluster (col. 7 ln. 53 – col. 8 ln. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches transmitting [information] comprising video data and bit rate (request triggers evaluation of bandwidth, traffic, service level, etc. and communicated – col. 9 ln. 48-52, Fig. 1); and distributing the distributed information according to a hop count for video distribution (content routing refers to hop relationship – col. 9 ln. 22-27, Fig. 1).
Wang does not explicitly disclose periodically transmitting a network state of each of the clusters to adjacent clusters or calculating according to the network state, a hop count required but this is taught by Kwon (transmit/update cluster status – col. 4 ln. 19-21; and implement hop count – col. 2 ln. 57-58, col. 8 ln. 4-10 and 23-25). The motivation to combine is the same as that given above.
Regarding claim 7, Wang and Kwon disclose updating the routing information table (Wang - update routing table in response to request – Fig. 1; Kwon – update routing information – Fig. 5). The combination of Wang and Kwon does not explicitly disclose “handling faults” through the clusters. However, the concept of “handling faults” or “fault tolerance” is extremely common and well-known in the art. Indeed the protocols used by the references may inherently have fault-tolerance aspects and would thus read on “handling faults” as recited by the claim. Even if not inherent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wang and Kwon to handle faults as this is merely the combination of a well-known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses calculating configuration information … according to the link information and the video request information (Wang discloses using the link/policy information and request information to determine configuration and orchestration information – col. 8 ln. 5-15);
generating hybrid decision-making information according to the configuration information, the hybrid-decision making information being used to authorize execution (the specification explains that “hybrid” means a combination of distributed and centralized control – paragraph 6, likewise, the SDN of Wang operates in a similarly “hybrid” fashion because certain functions are centralized (Fig. 2), while request and resources must be orchestrated that are distributed – col. 4 ln. 56 – col. 5 ln. 22; thus Wang reads on the “hybrid decision-making information” recited by the claim; and
obtaining the routing information table according to the configuration information of the … and the hybrid decision-making information (routing table is based on information – abstract, Fig. 1, col. 6 ln. 1-3 and col. 9 ln. 13-16).
Wang does not explicitly disclose “a distributed control tree”, but this is not a common term in the art and the specification does not describe what exactly the scope of this term does or does not include. Under the BRI, a “tree” refers to a hierarchy, so the BRI of a distributed control tree is interpreted to include a distributed control hierarchy. Wang discloses that the SDN is divided into hierarchies and includes a control layer (col. 1 ln. 37-40), thus it teaches or suggests a “distributed control tree” under the BRI of that term. So it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to use “a distributed control tree” based on Wang’s own teaching of using a distributed hierarchy architecture that provides control. This is merely the combination of a well-known technique (control via hierarchy) according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses generating distributed control decisions according to the hybrid decision-making information (as explained above, Wang discloses “hybrid decision-making information”, and generating distributed control decisions – send control data – col. 8 ln. 11-15 and col. 10 ln. 3-15); and generating the forwarding information table in combination with the routing information table and the distributed control decisions (generate forwarding table based on routing table and control decisions, e.g. node reservations, bandwidth, traffic, etc. – abstract, Fig. 1, col. 8 ln. 18-23 and col. 9 ln. 13-58).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Kwon in view of Uthaman et al. US 11,570,278 B1.
Regarding claim 5, Wang and Kwon do not disclose generating DNS information according to a user’s geographical characteristics. However, this is extremely common and well-known in the art. Uthaman explicitly teaches user location based DNS for a dynamic CDN (abstract, col. 8 ln. 56-67, Figs. 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang and Kwon to use user location information to generate DNS information. Kwon teaches this provides several advantages (col. 8 ln. 66 – col. 9 ln. 14).
Wang does not explicitly distributing the DNS information to each of the clusters but Uthaman discloses distributing the DNS information (send data to users so they can access requested website – Fig. 3), and Kwon teaches that users are mobile devices that form clusters. Thus, the combination reads on the limitation distributing the DNS information to each of the clusters. The motivation to combine is the same as that given above. Regarding the mapping feature, Wang discloses providing network application and service orchestration via SDN for the purpose of video distribution (abstract, col. 3 ln. 50-57). This is functionally equivalent to mapping an autonomous system to the corresponding [devices] according to the information, the autonomous system being used to determine a routing protocol for video distribution. Kwon supplies the missing feature of “clusters” as discussed above while Uthaman teaches the well-known DNS technique. Furthermore, Uthaman itself also suggests mapping domains to CDNS such as that taught by Wang (see col. 16 ln. 44-49, Fig. 8). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to map an AS to the clusters according to the DNS information for purposes of distributing video in view of the combination of Wang, Kwon and Uthaman as explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Daly US 2015/0188731 A1 discloses an SDN to provide forwarding policies for content delivery (abstract, paragraphs 2, 11, Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458