CTNF 18/729,420 CTNF 92133 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Analysis Claims reproduced and parsed into limitations. Independent Claim 1 (method): Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), claim 1 recites a method or operations implemented by computing devices / network nodes, the operations comprising: obtaining a weight indication of one or more weight(s) of requested information and a priority indication of one or more priority(ies) of requested information; generating a first request message, the first request message comprising the weight indication and the priority indication; and transmitting the first request message towards the second network node. Independent Claim 11 (a network node): Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), claim 11 recites a device configure to perform operations comprising: obtaining a weight indication of one or more weight(s) of requested information and a priority indication of one or more priority(ies) of requested information; generating a first request message, the first request message comprising the weight indication and the priority indication; and transmitting the first request message towards the second network node. Independent Claim 14 (method): Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), claim 14 recites a method or operations implemented by computing devices / network nodes, the operations comprising: receiving a first request message transmitted by the first network node, the first request message comprising a first weight indication of one or more weight(s) of requested information and a first priority indication of priority(ies) of requested information; generating a second message comprising a response to the first request message based on the first weight and the first priority indication; and transmitting the second message towards the first network node. Independent Claim 24 (a network node): Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), claim 24 recites a device configure to perform operations comprising: receiving a first request message transmitted by the first network node, the first request message comprising a first weight indication of one or more weight(s) of requested information and a first priority indication of priority(ies) of requested information; generating a second message comprising a response to the first request message based on the first weight and the first priority indication; and transmitting the second message towards the first network node. Dependent Claims 2-5, 7, 10, 15-20, 22-23 recite: obtaining/retrieving, generating, transmitting and receiving message/request comprised of information related to weights and priorities associated with a requested information. Dependent Claims 8 and 9 recite, in addition to the operations described above, a machine learning model and a message comprised of a type of training data. Step 1: Statutory category determination. Claims 1 and 14 (method), Statutory category under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 11 and 24 (a network node [i.e. machine/system]), Statutory category under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Step 2A, Prong 1: Identify judicial exception(s) Claims only recite limitations describing “obtaining/retrieving”, “generating”, “transmitting/delivering” and “receiving” particular types of information, e.g. weights and priorities associated with the requested information therefore the claims recite abstract ideas in the group of “Mental Process”. For example, a claim to a method of receiving/retrieving information; generating information and transmitting/delivering information could practically be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper and thus deemed an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2: Analyze integration into a practical application The claims only specify above mentioned operations in generic form and do not specify particular improvement in operations of obtaining, generating, transmitting and receiving information or mechanism that improves performance or reliability. No “particular machine” tie-in or transformation. The claims describe network nodes / devices in generic form. There is no transformation of an article to a different state or thing in the § 101 sense. Insignificant extra-solution activity. Although the claims, particularly claims 8 and 9, describe that the network node comprises a machine learning model and messages comprising machine learning training data, they do not specify type, implementation or functionalities of the machine learning model. Therefore, they do not meaningfully limit the claims. Accordingly, the claims fail to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application under Prong 2. Step 2B: Assess whether additional elements are significantly more Because the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas, whether the additional elements provide an “inventive concept” is accessed. Additional elements: the network node comprising a machine learning model and a request message comprising training data. These machine learning related elements do not specify type, implementation or functionalities of the machine learning model. On this record, the claims lack recited unconventional technical mechanisms or architectures that would supply “significantly more.” Conclusion: Eligible/ineligible under § 101. Claims 1–5, 7-11, 14-20 and 22-24 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C § 101. They recite abstract ideas and do not integrate those ideas into a practical application, and the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, failing to provide an inventive concept. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1–5, 7-11, 14-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas in the group of “Mental Process” without significantly more. The claims recites mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or by pen-and-paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5, 7, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talat et al. (US PG PUB 20160094464 ), hereinafter "Talat" in views of Berland et al. (US PG PUB 20170324677), hereinafter "Berland" . Regarding Claim 1, Talat discloses: A method performed by a first network node for handling requested information in collaboration with a second network node (i.e. a method/system, performed by computing device 100 [i.e. a first network node], for regulating data streams [i.e. requested information] in collaboration with a remote device 109 [i.e. a second network node]) (100 & 109 – Fig. 1, ¶ 0021 and ¶ 0035), the method comprising: obtaining a weight indication of one or more weight(s) of requested information and a priority indication of one or more priority(ies) of requested information (i.e. the method/system may obtain via stream manager 114 weights [i.e. a weight indication of one or more weight(s)] specifying relative portions of the streams [i.e. requested information] and categories defining priority classes [i.e. a priority indication of one or more priority(ies)] of the streams [i.e. requested information]) (¶ 0034); generating a first request message (i.e. the method/system may generate a request for streams, e.g. request for browsing streams) (¶ 0035); and transmitting the first request message towards the second network node (i.e. the method/system may transmit the request [i.e. the first request message] towards the remote device 109 [i.e. the second network node]) (109 - Fig. 1, ¶ 0023 and ¶ 0035). Talat doesn’t explicitly disclose: the first request message comprising the weight indication and the priority indication. On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Berland teaches: the first request message comprising the weight indication and the priority indication (i.e. stream manager may receive the request transmitted from the client, the request [i.e. the first request] may include priority data indicating parent-child priority dependencies [i.e. the priority indication] of the streams in a priority tree and relative weights [i.e. the weight indication] of the streams; Note that the parent stream is processed before its children [i.e. parents have higher priority than their children therefore dependencies is the priority indication]; and among children at the same level in the priority tree relative weights are assigned thus the weight indication) (Fig. 3, ¶ 0005 – 0006, ¶ 0011 - 0012 and ¶ 0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Talat to include the feature wherein the first request message comprising the weight indication and the priority indication as taught by Berland so that priorities may be assigned to the streams based on priority dependencies between them and relative weights may be assigned to the streams based on the priority level they belong to (Fig. 3, ¶ 0005 – 0006, ¶ 0011 - 0012 and ¶ 0055). Regarding Claim 2, Talat and Berland disclose, in particular Talat teaches: receiving a second message transmitted by the second network node (i.e. device 100 [i.e. the first network node] may receive data streams [i.e. a second message] transmitted by the remote device 109 [i.e. the second network node]) (100 & 109 – Fig. 1, ¶ 0021 and ¶ 0034 - 0035), the second message comprising: information selected based on the weight indication and/or the priority indication (i.e. data streams [i.e. information] of high priority category selected to be transmitted using all or larger portion of bandwidth based on its higher priority status [i.e. the priority indication) (¶ 0034 – 0035). Regarding Claim 3, Talat and Berland disclose, in particular Berland teaches: Wherein the second message comprises information obtained from a third network node (i.e. the stream manager 210 [i.e. the second network node] may transmit resources comprising data stream [i.e. the second message comprises information] to client 210 [i.e. the first network node], wherein the data stream is from server 220 [i.e. a third network node]) (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0031 - 0032). The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1. Regarding Claim 4, Talat and Berland disclose, in particular Berland teaches: Wherein the first request message comprises: the weight indication, wherein the weight indication indicates a weight to be used when sending the requested information towards the first network node (i.e. stream manager may receive the request [i.e. the first request message] transmitted from the client; the request may include relative weights [i.e. the weight indication] assigned to the streams; the relative weights [i.e. the weight indication] are assigned and utilized to determine the relative amount [i.e. a weight to be used when sending] of resources to be allocated to the streams [i.e. the requested information] sent towards the client device [i.e. the first network node]) (Fig. 3, ¶ 0005 – 0006 and ¶ 0055). The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1. Regarding Claim 5, Talat and Berland disclose, in particular Berland teaches: wherein the first request message further comprises a condition relating to the weight indication and/or the priority indication (i.e. the request [i.e. the first request message] may include priority data of a priority tree indicating dependencies [i.e. a condition relating to the priority indication]) (¶ 0055 – 0057), when the condition comprises one or more of: an instruction for applying the weight and/or priority indication to the information (i.e. dependencies [i.e. a condition relating to the priority indication] indicate parent-child relationships [i.e. an instruction] for applying priorities [i.e. a priority indication] to the streams [i.e. the information]; For example, the dependencies indicate that a parent stream has higher priority than its child) (¶ 0007 and ¶ 0055 – 0057). The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1. Regarding Claim 7, Talat and Berland disclose, in particular Berland teaches: wherein the request message comprises: the weight indication (i.e. stream manager may receive the request [i.e. the first request message] transmitted from the client; the request may include relative weights [i.e. the weight indication] assigned to the streams) (Fig. 3, ¶ 0005 – 0006 and ¶ 0055) and the weight indication: reduces or increases a rate of sending of the first information towards the first network node (i.e. the relative weights [i.e. the weight indication] are assigned and utilized to determine the relative amount of resources to be allocated to the streams [i.e. the first information] sent towards the client device [i.e. the first network node]; For example, allocating the relative amount of resources may include assigning a number of frames per iteration to each stream [i.e. reduces or increases a rate of sending] based on its relative weight) (¶ 0040). The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1. Regarding Claim 10, Talat and Berland disclose, in particular Berland teaches: wherein the first request message further comprises: an indication of an amount of information to transmit towards the first network node (i.e. the request may include relative weights assigned to the streams; relative weights may indicate the relative amount of resources to be allocated; allocating the relative amount of resources may include assigning a number of frames per iteration [i.e. an indication of an amount of information to transmit] to each stream sent to the client [i.e. transmit towards the first network node]) (¶ 0040). The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1. Regarding Claim 11, Talat discloses: A first network node (i.e. a method/system, performed by computing device 100 [i.e. a first network node]) (100 & 109 – Fig. 1, ¶ 0021 and ¶ 0035), configured to: obtain a weight indication of one or more weight(s) of requested information and a priority indication of one or more priority(ies) of requested information (i.e. the method/system may obtain via stream manager 114 weights [i.e. a weight indication of one or more weight(s)] specifying relative portions of the streams [i.e. requested information] and categories defining priority classes [i.e. a priority indication of one or more priority(ies)] of the streams [i.e. requested information]) (¶ 0034); generate a first request message (i.e. the method/system may generate a request for streams, e.g. request for browsing streams) (¶ 0035); and transmit the first request message towards a second network node (i.e. the method/system may transmit the request [i.e. the first request message] towards the remote device 109 [i.e. a second network node]) (109 - Fig. 1, ¶ 0023 and ¶ 0035). Talat doesn’t explicitly disclose: the first request message comprising the weight indication and the priority indication. On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Berland teaches: the first request message comprising the weight indication and the priority indication (i.e. stream manager may receive the request transmitted from the client, the request [i.e. the first request] may include priority data indicating parent-child priority dependencies [i.e. the priority indication] of the streams in a priority tree and relative weights [i.e. the weight indication] of the streams; Note that the parent stream is processed before its children [i.e. parents have higher priority than their children therefore dependencies is the priority indication]; and among children at the same level in the priority tree relative weights are assigned thus the weight indication) (Fig. 3, ¶ 0005 – 0006, ¶ 0011 - 0012 and ¶ 0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Talat to include the feature wherein the first request message comprising the weight indication and the priority indication as taught by Berland so that priorities may be assigned to the streams based on priority dependencies between them and relative weights may be assigned to the streams based on the priority level they belong to (Fig. 3, ¶ 0005 – 0006, ¶ 0011 - 0012 and ¶ 0055) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talat in views of Berland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abelha et al. (US PG PUB 20220383184), hereinafter "Abelha" . Regarding Claim 8, Talat and Berland disclose all the features with respect to Claim 1 as described above. However, the combination of Talat and Berland does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first network node comprises a function training a machine learning model, the first request message requests training data comprising one or more features, and the weight and/or priority indication comprises an expected importance value for the one or more features. On the other hand, in a related art, Abelha disclose: wherein the first network node comprises a function training a machine learning model (i.e. model coordinator [i.e. the first network node] includes functionalities for training a machine learning model) (Fig. 1A, ¶ 0071 and ¶ 0073), the first request message requests training data comprising one or more features (i.e. a request for feature data [i.e. training data comprising one or more features] is sent to edge notes) (208 – Fig. 2 and ¶ 0081), and the weight and/or priority indication comprises an expected importance value for the one or more features (i.e. the feature data request indicates feature importance or relevance [i.e. an expected importance value for the one or more features] of the requested features) (¶ 0081). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Talat and Berland to include the feature wherein the first network node comprises a function training a machine learning model, the first request message requests training data comprising one or more features, and the weight and/or priority indication comprises an expected importance value for the one or more features as taught by Abelha so that the method/system may implement as a machine learning training system that obtain training data from a plurality of nodes based on the importance and relevance of the feature data (¶ 0081). Regarding Claim 9, Talat and Berland disclose all the features with respect to Claim 1 as described above. However, the combination of Talat and Berland does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first request message comprises the weight indication, the first network node comprises a function performing machine learning model inference, the first request message requests one or more inputs to the machine learning model, and the weight indication comprises one or more weights for the one or more inputs. On the other hand, in a related art, Abelha disclose: wherein the first request message comprises the weight indication (i.e. the feature data request indicates feature importance or relevance [i.e. the weight indication] of the requested features) (¶ 0081), the first network node comprises a function performing machine learning model inference (i.e. model coordinator [i.e. the first network node] includes functionalities for training a machine learning model) (Fig. 1A, ¶ 0071 and ¶ 0073), the first request message requests one or more inputs to the machine learning model (i.e. a request for feature data requests feature data used for training a machine learning model [i.e. one or more inputs to the machine learning model]) (208 – Fig. 2 and ¶ 0081), and the weight indication comprises one or more weights for the one or more inputs (i.e. the feature data request indicates feature importance or relevance of the requested features [i.e. one or more weights for the one or more inputs]) (¶ 0081). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Talat and Berland to include the feature wherein the first request message comprises the weight indication, the first network node comprises a function performing machine learning model inference, the first request message requests one or more inputs to the machine learning model, and the weight indication comprises one or more weights for the one or more inputs as taught by Abelha so that the method/system may implement as a machine learning training system that obtain training data from a plurality of nodes based on the importance and relevance of the feature data (¶ 0081) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14-20 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berland in views of Galloni et al. (US PG PUB 20210021691), hereinafter "Galloni" . Regarding Claim 14, Berland discloses: A method performed by a second network node for handling requested information in collaboration with a first network node (i.e. a method performed by stream manager 210 [i.e. a second network node] for managing data streams [i.e. requested information] in collaboration with client 250 [i.e. a first network node]) (Fig. 3, ¶ 0027 and ¶ 0030), the method comprising: receiving a first request message transmitted by the first network node (i.e. stream manager may receive the request [i.e. a first request message] transmitted from the client [i.e. the first network node]) (¶ 0030 and ¶ 0054), the first request message comprising a first weight indication of one or more weight(s) of requested information and a first priority indication of priority(ies) of requested information (i.e. the request [i.e. the first request message] may include priority data indicating parent-child priority dependencies [i.e. a first priority indication of priority(ies)] of streams [i.e. requested information] in a priority tree and relative weights [i.e. a first weight indication of one or more weight(s)] of the streams [i.e. requested information]; Note that the parent stream is processed before its children [i.e. parents have higher priority than their children therefore dependencies is the priority indication]; and among children at the same level in the priority tree relative weights are assigned thus the weight indication) (Fig. 3, ¶ 0005 – 0006, ¶ 0011 - 0012 and ¶ 0055). However, Berland does not explicitly disclose: generating a second message comprising a response to the first request message based on the first weight and/or and the first priority indication; and transmitting the second message towards the first network node. On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Galloni teaches: generating a second message comprising a response to the first request message based on the first weight and the first priority indication (i.e. the method/system, e.g. proxy server [i.e. second network node], may generate a response [i.e. a second message comprising a response] to the request for content items / streams [i.e. the first request message]; the response [i.e. a second message comprising a response] may include content items /streams that are prioritized based on priority [i.e. the first priority indication], e.g. critical, normal, etc., and group weights [i.e. the first weight]) (Abstract, Fig. 1A, 251 & 219 – Fig. 2B, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 0033, ¶ 0035 and ¶ 0058 - 0059); and transmitting the second message towards the first network node (i.e. the proxy server may send responses [i.e. the second message] including requested content items toward client device [i.e. the first network node]) (313 – Fig. 3 and ¶ 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Berland to include the feature for generating a second message comprising a response to the first request message based on the first weight and/or and the first priority indication; and transmitting the second message towards the first network node as taught by Galloni so that requested content items / streams may be prioritized based on their importance before sending to the first network node (Fig. 5, ¶ 0046 and ¶ 0058 - 0059). Regarding Claim 15, Berland and Galloni disclose, in particular Galloni teaches: generating a third message based on the first weight and the first priority indication (i.e. the method/system, e.g. proxy server, may generate a response [i.e. a third message] to the request for content items / streams; the response may include content items /streams that are prioritized based on priority, e.g. critical, normal, etc., and group weights [i.e. the first weight]) (Abstract, Fig. 1A, 251 & 219 – Fig. 2B, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 0033, ¶ 0035 and ¶ 0058 - 0059); and transmitting the third message towards the third network node (i.e. the proxy server may send responses [i.e. the third message] toward a client device [i.e. the third network node]) (313 – Fig. 3 and ¶ 0046). The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 14. Regarding Claim 16, Berland and Galloni disclose, in particular Berland teaches: wherein the third message comprises: a second weight indication of one or more weights(s) of requested information (i.e. the request may include relative weights [i.e. a second weight indication of one or more weights(s)] assigned to the streams [i.e. requested information]) (Fig. 3, ¶ 0005 – 0006 and ¶ 0055). Regarding Claim 17, Berland and Galloni disclose, in particular Galloni teaches: receiving a fourth message from the third network node, the fourth message comprising information selected based on a priority or a weight indication included in the third message (i.e. the method/system, e.g. proxy server, may receive a information collected by the monitor code 180 [i.e. a fourth message] from the client [i.e. the third network node]; the information [i.e. the fourth message] may include usage of the content item, priority hints, visible or hidden content item state and similar priority indications [i.e. selected based on a priority or a weight indication] that can be identified in the content item [i.e. third message]) (Fig. 1B and ¶ 0023). The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 15. Regarding Claim 18, Berland and Galloni disclose, in particular Galloni teaches: Wherein the second message comprises: information selected based on the first weight and/or first priority indication (i.e. the method/system, e.g. proxy server, may generate a response [i.e. a second message] which may include content items /streams that are prioritized based on priority [i.e. information selected based on the first weight and/or first priority indication]) (Abstract, Fig. 1A, 251 & 219 – Fig. 2B, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 0033, ¶ 0035 and ¶ 0058 - 0059) The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 15. Regarding Claim 19, Berland and Galloni disclose, in particular Berland teaches: Wherein the first request message comprises: the first weight indication, wherein the first weight indication indicates a weight to be used when sending the requested information towards the first network node (i.e. the request [i.e. the first request message] may include priority data indicating parent-child priority dependencies [i.e. a first priority indication of priority(ies)] of streams [i.e. requested information] in a priority tree and relative weights [i.e. a first weight indication of one or more weight(s)] of the streams [i.e. requested information]; Note that the parent stream is processed before its children [i.e. parents have higher priority than their children therefore dependencies is the priority indication]; and among children at the same level in the priority tree relative weights are assigned thus the weight indication) (Fig. 3, ¶ 0005 – 0006, ¶ 0011 - 0012 and ¶ 0055). Regarding Claim 20, Berland and Galloni disclose, in particular Berland teaches: wherein the first request message further comprises a condition relating to the weight indication and/or the priority indication (i.e. the request [i.e. the first request message] may include priority data of a priority tree indicating dependencies [i.e. a condition relating to the priority indication]) (¶ 0055 – 0057), when the condition comprises one or more of: an instruction for applying the weight and/or priority indication to the information (i.e. dependencies [i.e. a condition relating to the priority indication] indicate parent-child relationships [i.e. an instruction] for applying priorities [i.e. a priority indication] to the streams [i.e. the information]; For example, the dependencies indicate that a parent stream has higher priority than its child) (¶ 0007 and ¶ 0055 – 0057). Regarding Claim 22, Talat and Berland disclose, in particular Berland teaches: wherein the request message comprises: the weight indication (i.e. stream manager may receive the request [i.e. the first request message] transmitted from the client; the request may include relative weights [i.e. the weight indication] assigned to the streams) (Fig. 3, ¶ 0005 – 0006 and ¶ 0055) and the weight indication: reduces or increases a rate of sending of the first information towards the first network node (i.e. the relative weights [i.e. the weight indication] are assigned and utilized to determine the relative amount of resources to be allocated to the streams [i.e. the first information] sent towards the client device [i.e. the first network node]; For example, allocating the relative amount of resources may include assigning a number of frames per iteration to each stream [i.e. reduces or increases a rate of sending] based on its relative weight) (¶ 0040). Regarding Claim 23, Talat and Berland disclose, in particular Berland teaches: wherein the first request message further comprises: an indication of an amount of information to transmit towards the first network node (i.e. the request may include relative weights assigned to the streams; relative weights may indicate the relative amount of resources to be allocated; allocating the relative amount of resources may include assigning a number of frames per iteration [i.e. an indication of an amount of information to transmit] to each stream sent to the client [i.e. transmit towards the first network node]) (¶ 0040). Regarding Claim 24, Berland discloses: A second network node (i.e. a method performed by stream manager 210 [i.e. a second network node]) (Fig. 3, ¶ 0027 and ¶ 0030), Configured to: receive a first request message transmitted by a first network node (i.e. stream manager may receive the request [i.e. a first request message] transmitted from the client [i.e. the first network node]) (¶ 0030 and ¶ 0054), the first request message comprising a first priority indication of priority(ies) of requested information and a first weight indication of one or more weight(s) of requested information (i.e. the request [i.e. the first request message] may include priority data indicating parent-child priority dependencies [i.e. a first priority indication of priority(ies)] of streams [i.e. requested information] in a priority tree and relative weights [i.e. a first weight indication of one or more weight(s)] of the streams [i.e. requested information]; Note that the parent stream is processed before its children [i.e. parents have higher priority than their children therefore dependencies is the priority indication]; and among children at the same level in the priority tree relative weights are assigned thus the weight indication) (Fig. 3, ¶ 0005 – 0006, ¶ 0011 - 0012 and ¶ 0055). However, Berland does not explicitly disclose: generate a second message comprising a response to the first request message based on the first weight and the first priority indication; and transmit the second message towards the first network node. On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Galloni teaches: generate a second message comprising a response to the first request message based on the first weight and the first priority indication (i.e. the method/system, e.g. proxy server [i.e. second network node], may generate a response [i.e. a second message comprising a response] to the request for content items / streams [i.e. the first request message]; the response [i.e. a second message comprising a response] may include content items /streams that are prioritized based on priority [i.e. the first priority indication], e.g. critical, normal, etc., and group weights [i.e. the first weight]) (Abstract, Fig. 1A, 251 & 219 – Fig. 2B, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 0033, ¶ 0035 and ¶ 0058 - 0059); and transmit the second message towards the first network node (i.e. the proxy server may send responses [i.e. the second message] including requested content items toward client device [i.e. the first network node]) (313 – Fig. 3 and ¶ 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Berland to include the feature for generating a second message comprising a response to the first request message based on the first weight and/or and the first priority indication; and transmitting the second message towards the first network node as taught by Galloni so that requested content items / streams may be prioritized based on their importance before sending to the first network node (Fig. 5, ¶ 0046 and ¶ 0058 - 0059). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOE MIN HLAING whose telephone number is (303)297-4282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM. 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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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. /Soe Hlaing/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 2 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 3 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 4 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 5 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 6 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 7 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 8 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 9 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 10 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 11 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 12 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 13 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 14 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 15 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 17 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 18 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 19 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 20 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 21 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 22 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 23 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 18/729,420 Page 24 Art Unit: 2451
Prosecution Insights