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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 2/26/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-32 is/are pending in the application.
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, namely (“device means” comprising for performing (claim 28), ”means for performing” (claim 29) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 19, 22 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 29 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 30, 31 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 19, 22, 29-31 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-32 are directed to generating re-ordered application data. Specifically, the claims recite generating trace statistics information based on multiple obtained traces of respective application sessions, each trace comprising data chunk access information collected during a respective application session, wherein the trace statistics information comprises information on a determined occurrence position of a respective data chunk based on respective occurrence positions of the respective data chunk in the obtained traces; a second device comprising means for performing a method comprising: running a session of the application; recording a trace of the application session, the trace comprising data chunk access information collected during the application session; receiving re-ordered application data of the application for storing in a local storage, wherein the data chunks in the re-ordered application data are ordered in an expected access order when running the application, running the application based on the received re-ordered application data, wherein in case a request of the application requests one or more data chunks, which are already present in the local storage, the request is answered with the one or more data chunks present in the local storage, sending the re-ordered application to a third device e for running the application, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as first device, second device, third device, computer readable storage medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the first device, second device, third device, computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of generating the re-ordered application data by at least partially ordering the data chunks in the re-ordered application data at least based on the determined occurrence position of respective data chunks; at least partially intercepting data chunk access of one or more other applications from being recorded in the data chunk access information of the application session; in case a request of the application requests one or more data chunks, which are not yet present in the local storage, the request is re-inserted into the request queue. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a first device, second device, third device, computer readable storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of generating re-ordered application data. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the first device, second device, third device, computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of generating the re-ordered application data by at least partially ordering the data chunks in the re-ordered application data at least based on the determined occurrence position of respective data chunks; at least partially intercepting data chunk access of one or more other applications from being recorded in the data chunk access information of the application session; in case a request of the application requests one or more data chunks, which are not yet present in the local storage, the request is re-inserted into the request queue. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of generating re-ordered application data. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-18, 20-21, 23-28, 32 further describe the abstract idea of generating re-ordered application data. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 9-11 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.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “sufficiently large number of occurrences” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “sufficiently large number of occurrences” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “sufficiently large or small” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “sufficiently large or small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “sufficiently large” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “sufficiently large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13, 17-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stiers (U.S. Patent App Pub 20080270567).
Regarding claim 1,
Stiers teaches a method of application streaming from original application data, performed by at least a first device, the method comprising: generating trace statistics information based on multiple obtained traces of respective application sessions, each trace comprising data chunk access information collected during a respective application session, wherein the trace statistics information comprises information on a determined occurrence position of a respective data chunk based on respective occurrence positions of the respective data chunk in the obtained traces; - (See paragraphs 29-31, 50, Stiers teaches chunks positions based on program 115 gathering information)
generating re-ordered application data by at least partially ordering the data chunks in the re-ordered application data at least based on the determined occurrence position of respective data chunks. (See paragraphs 49, 50, 56, Stiers teaches reordering chunks)
and sending the re-ordered application to a third device for running the application. (See paragraph 46, 57, Stiers teaches sending the reordered application to cell devices)
Regarding claim 3,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 1, wherein chains of data chunks having subsequent indices in the original application data are at least partially maintained. (See paragraphs 50, 53, Stiers)
Regarding claim 4,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 3, wherein a data chunk having a certain index in the original application data is considered a part of a chain to be maintained in the re-ordered application data when its determined occurrence position is within a predefined number of data chunks from the determined occurrence position of the data chunk having the previous index in the original application data. (See paragraphs 51-52, Stiers)
Regarding claim 5,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 1, the method comprising: - assigning a currently assessed data chunk to a new chain of data chunks, in case a determined occurrence position of the currently assessed data chunk is lower than a determined occurrence position of a previously assessed data chunk or whether the determined occurrence position of the currently assessed data chunk is larger than a predefined threshold higher than the determined occurrence position of the previously assessed data chunk, and - otherwise appending the data chunk to a current chain of data chunks. (See paragraphs 51-52, Stiers)
Regarding claim 6,
Stiers teaches method of claim 1, wherein the re-ordered application data comprises partitions, the partitions at least comprising a majority partition and a minority partition, wherein the trace statistics information comprises information on a number of occurrences of a respective data chunk in the obtained traces, the method comprising: - assigning data chunks either to the majority partition or the minority partition based on the information on a number of occurrences of the respective data chunks. (See paragraphs 45, 46, figures 4-5, Stiers)
Regarding claim 7,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 6, wherein said ordering of the data chunks is at least performed for data chunks assigned to the majority partition. (See paragraphs 44, 50, claim 1, Stiers)
Regarding claim 8,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 6, wherein said assigning of data chunks into the majority partition and the minority partition of the re-ordered application data is performed bin-wise for bins of determined occurrence positions. (See paragraphs 44, 50, Stiers)
Regarding claim 9,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 6, wherein, for a separation of data chunks between the majority partition and the minority partition, data chunks with a sufficiently large number of occurrences are assigned to the majority partition, wherein data chunks without a sufficiently large number of occurrences are assigned to the minority partition. (See paragraphs 44, 50, claim 1, Stiers)
Regarding claim 10,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the number of occurrences is considered sufficiently large or small when compared to the numbers of occurrences of data chunks within a respective predefined bin of determined occurrence positions. (See paragraphs 44, 50, claim 1, Stiers)
Regarding claim 11,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 9, wherein a number of occurrences is considered sufficiently large in case the number of occurrences is above a predefined threshold, where the threshold is preferably a local threshold based on the numbers of occurrences of data chunks within a respective predefined bin of determined occurrence positions. (See paragraphs 52, 55, claim 1, Stiers)
Regarding claim 12,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 1, the method comprising one or more of: - receiving traces from multiple second devices, in particular as recorded according to a method of recording a trace of an application session, performed by at least a second device, the method comprising: - running a session of the application; - recording a trace of the application session, the trace comprising data chunk access information collected during the application session; - at least partially intercepting data chunk access of one or more other applications from being recorded in the data chunk access information of the application session; and wherein the step of sending comprises the step of the re-ordered application data to the third device based on the data chunk order of the re-ordered application data for running the application at the third device, in particular according to a method of: - receiving re-ordered application data of the application for storing in a local storage, wherein the data chunks in the re-ordered application data are ordered in an expected access order when running the application, - running the application based on the received re-ordered application data, wherein in case a request of the application requests one or more data chunks, which are already present in the local storage, the request is answered with the one or more data chunks present in the local storage, and in case a request of the application requests one or more data chunks, which are not yet present in the local storage, the request is re-inserted into the request queue. (See paragraphs 51-54, fig 4-5 Stiers )
Regarding claim 13,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 1, the method comprising: - determining a loading profile indicating the overall data required from the re-ordered application data when running the application from the re-ordered application data in dependence of time. (See paragraphs 18, 49, Stiers)
Regarding claim 17,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 1, the method comprising: - obtaining a patch for the re-ordered application data based on an unpatched re-ordered application data and patched re-ordered application data. . (See paragraphs 51-54, fig 4-5 Stiers )
Regarding claim 18,
Stiers teaches a method of sending application data, in particular performed by a first device, the method comprising: - sending re-ordered application data to a third device based on a data chunk order of the re-ordered application data for running the application at the third device, wherein the re-ordered application data has been generated from original application data according to a method of claim 1. (See paragraphs 43, 46, 50, fig 4-5 Stiers teaches reordering chunks to third device)
Regarding claim 19,
Stiers teaches a method of recording a trace of an application session, performed by at least a second device, the method comprising: - running a session of the application; - recording a trace of the application session, the trace comprising data chunk access information collected during the application session; - (See paragraphs 29-31, 50, Stiers teaches chunks positions based on program 115 gathering information)
at least partially intercepting data chunk access of one or more other applications from being recorded in the data chunk access information of the application session. (See paragraphs 53-54, Stiers teaches chunks are blocked/intercepted)
Regarding claim 20,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the recording of a trace is performed by a device driver and wherein the intercepting of data chunk access is performed by a filter or a file system. (See paragraphs 53-54, Stiers)
Regarding claim 21,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 19, the method comprising: - sending the trace of the application session to a first device for generating re-ordered application data, in particular according to a method comprising: - -(See paragraphs 49-50, Stiers
generating trace statistics information based on multiple obtained traces of respective application sessions, each trace comprising data chunk access information collected during a respective application session, wherein the trace statistics information comprises information on a determined occurrence position of a respective data chunk based on respective occurrence positions of the respective data chunk in the obtained traces; -(See paragraphs 29-31, 50, Stiers teaches chunks positions based on program 115 gathering information)
generating the re-ordered application data by at least partially ordering the data chunks in the re-ordered application data at least based on the determined occurrence position of respective data chunks. (See paragraphs 49, 50, 56, Stiers teaches reordering chunks)
Regarding claim 22,
Stiers teaches a method of running an application, performed at least by a third device, the method comprising: - receiving re-ordered application data of the application for storing in a local storage, wherein the data chunks in the re-ordered application data are ordered in an expected access order when running the application, (See paragraphs 49, 50, 56 Stiers teaches reordering chunks based on preference)
- running the application based on the received re-ordered application data, wherein in case a request of the application requests one or more data chunks, which are already present in the local storage, the request is answered with the one or more data chunks present in the local storage, and in case a request of the application requests one or more data chunks, which are not yet present in the local storage, the request is re-inserted into the request queue. (See paragraphs 20, 28, 55 Stiers teaches request for chunks of data)
Regarding claim 23,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 22, the method comprising: - receiving information representative of a loading profile indicating the overall data requested from the re-ordered application data when running the application from the re-ordered application data in dependence of time; - (See paragraphs 49, 51, Stiers teaches user preferences)
determining a dynamic pre-load based on a bandwidth available at the third device for downloading the re-ordered application data. (See paragraphs 49, 51, Stiers teaches preloading based on bandwidth)
Regarding claim 24,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 22, the method comprising: - in case a request of the application requests one or more data chunks, which are not yet present in the local storage, sending a download request to obtain at least the one or more data chunks, which are not yet present in the local storage. (See paragraphs 20, 28, Stiers teaches request for chunks of data)
Regarding claim 25,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 22, the method comprising one or more of: - applying a patch to the re-ordered application data; - obtaining an index file created based on updated re-ordered application data and updating a data chunk order of the re-ordered application data based on the index file so as to obtain updated re-ordered application data; - (See paragraphs 52, 34, Stiers teaches reordered data cached and updated the stream)
converting locally stored original application data of the application into the re-ordered application data; - converting the re-ordered application data into original application data.(See paragraphs 34, 37, Stiers teaches cached stored data)
Regarding claim 26,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 22, the method comprising: - at least partially intercepting requests for data chunks of one or more other applications. (See paragraphs 53-54, Stiers)
Regarding claim 27,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the re-ordered application data has been generated based on a method of comprising: - generating trace statistics information based on multiple obtained traces of respective application sessions, each trace comprising data chunk access information collected during a respective application session, wherein the trace statistics information comprises information on a determined occurrence position of a respective data chunk based on respective occurrence positions of the respective data chunk in the obtained traces; (See paragraphs 29-31, 50, Stiers teaches chunks positions based on program 115 gathering information) - generating the re-ordered application data by at least partially ordering the data chunks in the re-ordered application data at least based on the determined occurrence position of respective data chunks. (See paragraphs 49, 50, 56, Stiers teaches reordering chunks)
Regarding claim 28,
Stiers teaches a device comprising means for performing the method of claim 1. (See rejection to claim 1) Further see paragraph 25-26, Stiers)
Regarding claim 29,
Stiers teaches a system comprising one or more of: - a first device comprising means for performing a method comprising: - generating trace statistics information based on multiple obtained traces of respective application sessions, each trace comprising data chunk access information collected during a respective application session, wherein the trace statistics information comprises information on a determined occurrence position of a respective data chunk based on respective occurrence positions of the respective data chunk in the obtained traces; - generating the re-ordered application data by at least partially ordering the data chunks in the re-ordered application data at least based on the determined occurrence position of respective data chunks; - a second device comprising means for performing a method comprising: - running a session of the application; - recording a trace of the application session, the trace comprising data chunk access information collected during the application session; - at least partially intercepting data chunk access of one or more other applications from being recorded in the data chunk access information of the application session; - a third device comprising means for performing a method comprising: - receiving re-ordered application data of the application for storing in a local storage, wherein the data chunks in the re-ordered application data are ordered in an expected access order when running the application, - running the application based on the received re-ordered application data, wherein in case a request of the application requests one or more data chunks, which are already present in the local storage, the request is answered with the one or more data chunks present in the local storage, and in case a request of the application requests one or more data chunks, which are not yet present in the local storage, the request is re-inserted into the request queue.(See rejection to claims 1, 19 and 22)
Regarding claim 30,
Stiers teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer comprising instructions, which, when executed by a device, cause the device to perform a method according to claim 1. (See rejection to claim 1) Further see paragraph 25-26, Stiers)
Regarding claim 31,
Stiers teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions, which, when executed by a device, cause the device to perform a method according to claim 19. (See rejection to claim 19) Further see paragraph 25-26, Stiers)
Regarding claim 32,
Stiers teaches a Re-ordered application data, wherein the re-ordered application data has been generated according to claim 1. (See rejection to claim 1, the rejection to claim 32 is similar.)
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.
Claim(s) 2, 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiers (U.S. Patent App Pub 20080270567) in view of Mamidwar (U.S. Patent 10554571)
Regarding claim 2,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 1.
Stiers does not explicitly teach but Mamidwar teaches wherein the determined occurrence position is an average occurrence position of a respective data chunk in the obtained traces. (See col 5 line 54 – col 6 line 25, figures 3-4, Mamidwar)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Mamidwar with Stiers because both deal with streaming data. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Mamidwar into Stiers is that Mamidwar teaches a single bit rate allows for reduced processing performance constraints, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See col 1, Mamidwar)
Regarding claim 14,
Stiers teaches the method of claim 13.
Stiers does not explicitly teach but Mamidwar teaches wherein the trace statistics information comprises information on an average access time of a respective data chunk in the obtained traces, wherein the loading profile is determined based on the average access times of respective data chunks of the re-ordered application data. (See claim 1, col 5 line 54 – col 6 line 25, figures 3-4, Mamidwar)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Mamidwar with Stiers because both deal with streaming data. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Mamidwar into Stiers is that Mamidwar teaches a single bit rate allows for reduced processing performance constraints, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See col 1, Mamidwar)
Regarding claim 15,
Stiers teaches the method according to claim 14.
Stiers does not explicitly teach but Mamidwar teaches wherein the average access time of respective data chunks of the re-ordered application data is assumed to be, for data chunks within a bin of data chunks of the re-ordered application data, an average of the average access times within the bin. (See col 5 line 54 – col 6 line 25, figures 3-4, Mamidwar)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Mamidwar with Stiers because both deal with streaming data. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Mamidwar into Stiers is that Mamidwar teaches a single bit rate allows for reduced processing performance constraints, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See col 1, Mamidwar)
Regarding claim 16,
Stiers and Mamidwar teach the method of claim 13, the method comprising: - sending information representative of the loading profile for determining a dynamic pre-load based on a bandwidth available for downloading the re-ordered application data.(See paragraphs 52-53, Stiers teaches prepending chunks)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of generating re-ordered application data which is grouped within Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to generating re-ordered application data does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to first device, second device, third device, computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of generating the re-ordered application data by at least partially ordering the data chunks in the re-ordered application data at least based on the determined occurrence position of respective data chunks; at least partially intercepting data chunk access of one or more other applications from being recorded in the data chunk access information of the application session; in case a request of the application requests one or more data chunks, which are not yet present in the local storage, the request is re-inserted into the request queue. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to generating re-ordered application data does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to first device, second device, third device, computer readable storage medium are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of generating re-ordered application data. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
2. Applicant further argues “Further, paragraph [0057] explains that, or instance, for a separation of data chunks between the majority partition and the minority partition, data chunks with a sufficiently large number of occurrences are assigned to the majority partition, wherein data chunks without a sufficiently large number of occurrences are assigned to the minority partition. For instance, the number of occurrences may be considered sufficiently large or small when compared to the numbers of occurrences of data chunks within a respective predefined bin of determined occurrence positions. For instance, a number of occurrences may be considered sufficiently large in case the number of occurrences is above a predefined threshold, where the threshold is preferably a local threshold based on the numbers of occurrences of data chunks within a respective predefined bin of determined occurrence positions. Additionally, paragraph [0058] explains, for example, that based on the trace statistics information, the data chunks may be ordered according to their determined occurrence position. Then, bins may be created, wherein each bin comprises or spans a certain region or interval of determined occurrence positions. For instance, a bin may comprise a certain predefined number of determined occurrence positions or data chunks, e.g., 100,000, 200,000, 250,000, 500,000 data chunks or any other suitable number. In particular a bin size of around 250,000 data chunks (corresponding to 1GB of data) has been found to be effective. Then, the data chunks having determined occurrence positions in one bin may be considered and data chunks below (or above) a certain threshold (e.g., the determined number of occurrences or occurrence count in said bin or a fraction thereof) may be assigned to the minority (or majority) partition.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language is indefinite because the claims do not specify how to determine “sufficiently” large and the bins explanation from the Applicant fail to provide a definite rule for determining what this would encompass. The specification does not cure this defect because it only gives vague examples of arbitrary bin sizes. Therefore, the claim limitations are still indefinite.
3. Applicant argues With these requirements in mind, the applicants note that claim 1 requires, inter alia, generating trace statistics information based on multiple obtained traces of respective application sessions, each trace comprising data chunk access information collected during a respective application session, wherein the trace statistics information comprises information on a determined occurrence position of a respective data chunk based on respective occurrence positions of the respective data chunk in the obtained traces.
In an attempt to meet these limitations, the Examiner cites paragraphs [0029]-[0031] and [0050] of Stiers as teaching "chunks positions based on program 115 gathering information." However, while these paragraphs of Stiers teach broadly the reordering of chunks of data in a streaming service, there is simply no teaching or suggestion of the trace statistics required by claim 1. Instead, personalized parameters and personal preferences are used, not trace statistics information based on multiple obtained traces of respective application sessions.
Further, claim 1 requires generating the re-ordered application data by at least
partially ordering the data chunks in the re-ordered application data at least based on the determined occurrence position of respective data chunks. The Examiner additionally cites to paragraphs [0049], [0050], and [0056] of Stiers in an attempt to meet this additional requirement of claim 1. However, these additional paragraphs of Stiers do not provide any teaching or suggestion of reordering based on determined occurrence position of respective data chunks as required by the actual limitations of claim 1. Instead, the chunks that are reordered in the Stiers reference are based simply on user preferences for receipt of the streaming content, e.g. news, sports, weather.
As such, Stiers fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1, and
therefore cannot anticipate this claim or any claim dependent thereon. Reconsideration and withdraw of this ground of rejection in view of the foregoing and indication of the allowability of claim 1 and claims 3-13, 17, and 18, 28, 30-32 dependent thereon at an early date are respectfully solicited.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stiers teaches the reordering of chunks based on observed access patterns or conditions and encoding the metadata about the chunk order. Thus, corresponds to generating trace statics and determine occurrence positions. (See at least paragraphs 19 and 49). Further the described decision engine and reordering logic show analysis of chunk access across multiple conditions which satisfy the data chunk access information which is gathered over application sessions. See paragraphs 19 and 50.
4. Claim 19 requires, inter alia, recording a trace of the application session, the trace comprising data chunk access information collected during the application session, and at least partially intercepting data chunk access of one or more other applications from being recorded in the data chunk access information of the application session.
The Examiner cites to paragraphs [0053] and [0054] as providing such limitations.
However, neither of these paragraphs teach or suggest such interception of data chunk access of another application from being recorded in the data check access information of the application session. Instead, paragraph [0053] teaches that a message or ad can be inserted in the stream if it is determined that the use has changed channels, or if the use selects a channel to which they have not subscribed. Paragraph [0054] teaches that a user can set preferences, e.g., turn off incoming mail messages or no pornographic programs be delivered, and the system will not deliver such content to the user based on such set preferences.
As such, Stiers fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 19, and therefore cannot anticipate this claim or any claim dependent thereon. Reconsideration and withdraw of this ground of rejection in view of the foregoing and indication of the allowability of claim 19 and claims 20 and 21 dependent thereon at an early date are respectfully solicited.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to paragraphs 53-54 of Stiers. This section teaches customization logic that dynamically modifies content streams in response to user behavior and external stimuli, effectively capturing chunk access activity for the sessions. Selectively including and/or excluding content based on preferences or conditions teaches the interception of other application’s chunk access from being recorded in the trace.
5. Applicant argues Claim 22 requires, inter alia, that re-ordered application data is stored in local storage and are ordered in an expected access order when running the application. The Examiner cites to paragraphs [0049], [0050], and [0056] of Stiers, but none of these paragraphs teach or suggest this limitation, to wit, stored in local storage and ordered in an expected access order, of claim 22. Indeed, the Examiner's further citation to paragraph [0020] makes clear that the data chunks are distributed to a variety of network entities from which the data are streamed, which allows the mobile device to access content stored on other peers in the peer-to-peer network before having to access the content server. As such, Stiers fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 22, and therefore cannot anticipate this claim or any claim dependent thereon. Reconsideration and withdraw of this ground of rejection in view of the foregoing and indication of the allowability of claim 22 and claims 23-27 dependent thereon at an early date are respectfully solicited.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stiers in paragraphs 42, 46 and 57 teaches delivery of reordered streams of chunks to the mobile devices configured to process and render the data which teaches storing re-ordered application data in local storage because the mobile device uses the received chunks in the expected order for presentation and execution. The rendering logic is used and processes the chunks in the expected access order.
6. Applicant argues Claims 2 requires, inter alia, that "the determined occurrence position is an average occurrence position of a respective data chunk in the obtained traces." The Examiner admits that Stiers fails to teach or suggest this limitation, but asserts that Mamidwar teaches this limitation in column5, line 54 to column 6, line 25. The applicants respectfully traverse this position. The cited portion of Mamidwar only adds timing to aid in reconstruction after streaming. Such timing may be generated by clock reference (CR) circuitry, and may include packet-to-packet durations, timings for chunk boundaries, or average packet-to-packet interval. Such timings may be included in the information packets, and the packet-to-packet timings, whether average timings or actual time measurements, may be used to reconstruct the timing of the stream at the input. However, this cited teaching of Mamidwar does not teach or suggest using an average occurrence "position" of the respective data chunk in the obtained traces as specifically required by claim 2. Such average occurrence position has nothing to do with any packet-to- packet timings, whether average timings or actual time measurements. Indeed, the use of such timing is specifically taught against in, e.g., paragraph [0043] of the originally filed application, which states, "The determined occurrence position of a respective data chunk is understood to not take into account the (relative or absolute) access time, at which the data chunk is requested." (Emphasis added). As such, the suggested use of Mamidwar would lead in a direction divergent' from the path that was taken by the applicant, which is precluded by MPEP § 2145. Reconsideration and withdraw of this ground of rejection in view of the foregoing and indication of the allowability of claim 2 at an early date are respectfully solicited.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to Manidwar column 5 line 52 to column 6 line 25. In this section Manidwar teaches using timing and stat relationships between the packets and portions of the data streams to reconstruct the timing and ordering. This provides an average behavior metric for chunk occurrence. This combined with Stiers teaching of chunk reordering based on observed patterns thus teaches determining an average occurrence position across traces.
7. Claim 14 requires, inter alia, that "the trace statistics information comprises
information on an average access time of a respective data chunk in the obtained traces."
As discussed above, the cited portions of Mamidwar only discuss that packet-to- packet durations, timings for chunk boundaries, or average packet-to-packet interval, whether average timings or actual time measurements, may be used to reconstruct the timing of the stream at the input. There is no teaching or suggestion, however, of the use of average "access time" of a respective data chunk as required by claim 14.
As described in paragraph [0062] or the originally filed application, "the trace
statistics information comprises information on an average access time of a respective data chunk in the obtained traces, wherein the loading profile is determined based on the average access times of respective data chunks of the re-ordered application data. However, due to different usages of an application and depending on the ordering or sorting approach applied, the average access time values may fluctuate when considering the data chunks re-ordered according to the order of being expected to be requested. Thus, the average access time of respective data chunks may be assumed to be a mean of the average access times of surrounding data chunks."
1"It is improper to combine references where the references teach away from their combination." MPEP § 2145. "A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Indeed, the prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims[.]" MPEP § 2141.02(VI).
As such, it is clear that the packet-to-packet durations, timings for chunk boundaries, or average packet-to-packet interval, whether average timings or actual time measurements of Mamidwar do not teach or suggest the required "average access time" of claim 14, nor the use of such average "access time" to determine the loading profile.
Reconsideration and withdraw of this ground of rejection in view of the foregoing and indication of the allowability of claim 14, and claim 15 dependent thereon, at an early date are respectfully solicited.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and point to Manidwar which teaches calculating average behavior metric relevant to the data chunks as an average access time information of those chunks. Column 6 of Mandiwar teaches “27) FIG. 3 shows example distributor circuitry 300, which may be included within the splitter 108. The example distributor circuitry may include an input 302 for receiving an input stream. The distributor circuitry 300 may generate chunks at the system chunk size by dividing the input stream into chunks 304. The routing circuitry 308 may then attach informational packets (IP) 310 to the ends of the chunks. The clock references from generation of the informational packets 310 may be provided by the clock reference (CR) circuitry 306, which may be fed with a clock signal input, for example from a 27 MHz free running clock or other clock input. In some cases, the CR circuitry may provide the GCBCR for informational packet timestamping. The CR circuitry 306 may be used to sample the timings for packet-to-packet durations or may be used to determine timings for chunk boundaries or other timings. In some cases, an average packet-to-packet interval may be used. For example, the chunk boundary timings may be determined and then the total end-to-end timing for the chunk may be divided by the chunk size, e.g., the number of packets in the chunk. The timings including calculated averages may be included in the information packets 310. The packet-to-packet timings, whether average timings or actual time measurements, may be used by a packet sequencer to reconstruct the timing of the stream at the input 302 (or at least an estimate of the timing at the input 302). The system may use a single chunk size or a dynamic chunk size which may be determined according to relative channel bandwidths, latency, or other system parameters. In some cases, a single chuck size may allow for simpler stream reconstruction upon reception when compared to multiple or dynamic chunk size systems. In some cases, to maintain a system defined chunk size, null packets may be inserted into the chunks. In some cases, the null packets may be inserted next to chunk boundaries. In some implementations, if the sum of the channel bandwidth is larger than the STS, the system may adjust the output to account for the difference. For example, null packets may be inserted on chunk boundaries, new dummy chunks may be created to occupy the excess bandwidth, or other data structures may be transmitted to occupy the bandwidth”. Stier’s further teaches trace collection and reordering, this teaches including average access time in trace statistics.
8. Claim 16 requires, inter alia, "sending information representative of the loading
profile for determining a dynamic pre-load based on a bandwidth available for downloading the re-ordered application data." However, Stiers paragraphs [0052] and [0053] do not teach or suggest determining a dynamic pre-load whatsoever. While the Examiner notes that these paragraphs teach "prepending chunks," such prepended information relates to a warning message that may be prepended to the series of chunks to suggest a user update their service plan, commercial ads, public service announcements, etc. The dynamic pre-load is discussed in paragraph [0082] as information regarding how large the pre-load needs to be such that the device does not run out of content when running the application based on the re-ordered application data during data streaming. Such is not taught or suggested by the cited teachings of Stiers wherein advertisements or data service plan suggestions are prepended to chunks. Reconsideration and withdraw of this ground of rejection in view of the foregoing and indication of the allowability of claim 16 at an early date are respectfully solicited.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to paragraphs 51-53 of Stiers teaches mechanisms for adapting content delivery based on conditions such as network characteristics and user activity. This adaptation dynamically helps prepare and/or preload content based on bandwidth availability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Reeves, U.S. Patent App 20230403532, teaches methods, media, and systems are provided for dynamic session trace management for user equipment (UE). For example, a first node is identified for a first UE, the first node being associated with a default trace processor. In some embodiments, the first node is identified based on a setup communication with the first UE. A trace profile for the first UE may generated. The trace profile may indicate a primary trace processor for the first UE. Based on the default trace processor of the first node being different than the primary trace processor, the first node is instructed to utilize the primary trace processor for trace reports associated with the first UE. In some embodiments, the primary trace processor may identify a location for the first UE using the trace reports. The trace reports may be received from a plurality of nodes and maintained by the primary trace processor.
2. Luo, U.S. Patent App 20200396233, teaches concepts relate to identifying entities based on their behavior using machine learning models. Where an entity may be a bot or a human, the entity's requests sent to a website are used to generate a graph. The graph may be used to create an image, such that the image reflects the entity's browsing behavior. A machine learning model, which has been trained using a first training set of images that correspond to bots and a second training set of images that correspond to humans, can determine whether the entity is a bot or a human by performing an image classification.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444