DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This communication is in response to the amendment/arguments filed on October 23, 2025 has been fully considered. The rejection is made final. Claims 1-12 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 13-20 are pending for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, supports are shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 23, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pages 8-9 that “a method that includes "identifying, by a computing system, a first plurality of compute nodes that is available to concurrently perform the one or more tasks on portions of the first data, the first data being compressed data" (emphasis added). …, the Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the above recitation”, is acknowledged but not deemed to be persuasive.
Meardi [0128] and Figs. 10-11 discloses as shown by communications 1035, the remote server 1050 may provide remote video analysis in order to assign the priority classes or otherwise indicate the data packets of the encoded data streams (i.e., compressed data stream) that are to be transmitted to the distribution centre 1060 (e.g. for real-time distribution of video and/or audio relating to a live event. Meardi [0113] discloses simultaneously process (e.g., in real-time process) (i.e., concurrent process)). As such, the distribution centre 1060 may receive AI-selected video feeds at a full level of quality for a subset of the signal sources, where the encoded data that is sent to the distribution centre 1060, and the signal sources that are selected for primary (live) distribution vary during a live event based on automated video analysis. this may allow, for example, automated football or actor tracking, automated full-face tracking, automated action tracking, automated close-caption camera review etc. (i.e., simultaneous or concurrent task or activities). The distribution centre 1060 may distribute encoded data to one or more end user devices (i.e., plurality of computer nodes) for rendering of a decoded signal, e.g. viewing a video feed (i.e., concurrently performing of compressed tasks). Therefore, Meardi discloses the above argued limitation of claims 13 and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0292589 A1, ‘Taylor’, hereafter) in view of Meardi et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0370624 A1, ‘Meardi’, hereafter).
Regarding claim 13. Taylor teaches a method, comprising:
identifying or selecting, by the computing system, one or more first compute nodes among the first plurality of compute nodes to perform decompression of the first data (Taylor [0017], [0027-0028]);
sending, by the computing system and to each of the one or more first compute nodes, one or more first instructions to decompress the first data and to perform at least one first task among the one or more tasks on a portion of the decompressed first data (Taylor [0024], [0026], [0028]);
receiving, by the computing system and from each of the one or more first compute nodes, a message regarding a data storage location in which the decompressed first data is being stored (Taylor [0024], [0026], [0028]);
sending, by the computing system and to each of one or more second compute nodes among the first plurality of compute nodes, one or more second instructions to perform at least one second task among the one or more tasks on an assigned portion of the decompressed first data, the one or more second instructions including third instructions regarding how to access the assigned portion of the decompressed first data (Taylor [0028], [0055-0056], [0058-0060]);
receiving, by the computing system and from each of the one or more first compute nodes and from each of the one or more second compute nodes, results of one of the at least one first tasks or the at least one second tasks (Taylor [0026], [0028], [0055-0056], [0058-0060]);
collating or compiling, by the computing system, the received results; and sending, by the computing system, the collated or compiled results to the requesting device (Taylor [0028], [0055-0056], [0058-0060]).
Taylor does not teach
in response to receiving, from a requesting device, a request to perform one or more tasks on first data, identifying, by a computing system, a first plurality of compute nodes that is available to concurrently perform the one or more tasks on portions of the first data, the first data being compressed data;
However, Meardi teaches
in response to receiving, from a requesting device, a request to perform one or more tasks on first data, identifying, by a computing system, a first plurality of compute nodes that is available to concurrently perform the one or more tasks on portions of the first data, the first data being compressed data (Meardi [0128] and Figs. 10-11 discloses as shown by communications 1035, the remote server 1050 may provide remote video analysis in order to assign the priority classes or otherwise indicate the data packets of the encoded data streams (i.e., compressed data stream) that are to be transmitted to the distribution centre 1060 (e.g. for real-time distribution of video and/or audio relating to a live event. Meardi [0113] discloses simultaneously process (e.g., in real-time process) (i.e., concurrent process)). As such, the distribution centre 1060 may receive AI-selected video feeds at a full level of quality for a subset of the signal sources, where the encoded data that is sent to the distribution centre 1060, and the signal sources that are selected for primary (live) distribution vary during a live event based on automated video analysis. this may allow, for example, automated football or actor tracking, automated full-face tracking, automated action tracking, automated close-caption camera review etc. (i.e., simultaneous or concurrent task or activities). The distribution centre 1060 may distribute encoded data to one or more end user devices (i.e., plurality of computer nodes) for rendering of a decoded signal, e.g. viewing a video feed (i.e., concurrently performing of compressed tasks), Meardi [0128] and Figs. 10-11);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Taylor and Meardi before him/her, to modify Taylor with the teaching of Meardi’s distributed analysis of a multi-layer signal encoding. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of performing automated analysis of digital signals, for example Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) systems for performing object analysis and/or scene classification in a sequence of images and for performing analysis of data that is captured, encoded and/or archived in a location that is different from that of the system that performs analysis of the data (Meardi, Abstract and [0001]).
Regarding claim 14. Taylor as modified teaches, wherein the computing system comprises at least one of an orchestration system, a task distribution system, a task manager, a server, an artificial intelligence ("AI") and/or machine learning ("ML") system, a cloud computing system, or a distributed computing system (Taylor [0024]).
Regarding claim 15. Taylor as modified teaches, wherein the first data comprises one of a data file or streaming data, wherein the first data is of a data type comprising one of video data, two-dimensional ("2D") image data, three-dimensional ("3D") image data, animation data, gaming content data, or audio data (Taylor [0024]).
Regarding claim 16. Taylor as modified teaches, wherein the decompressed first data is divided among a number of compute nodes comprising the one or more first compute nodes and the one or more second compute nodes, wherein the at least one second tasks are the same as the at least one first tasks, and each of the number of compute nodes performs the at least one first or second tasks on its assigned portion of the decompressed first data (Meardi, [0128] and Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 18. Taylor as modified teaches, wherein the one or more first instructions to decompress the first data comprises one of:
fourth instructions to decompress an entirety of the compressed first data; or fifth instructions to decompress the portion of the decompressed first data, based on a state of decompression from at least one of the computing system or one other compute node among the first plurality of compute nodes, and to send an updated state of decompression to at least one of the computing system or one or more other compute nodes among the plurality of compute nodes, after decompressing the portion of the compressed first data (Taylor [0024]).
Regarding claim 19. Taylor as modified teaches, wherein the third instructions further comprise instructions on how to calculate a start of the assigned portion of the first decompressed data (Taylor [0104-0105]).
Regarding claim 20. Taylor teaches a system (A system for machine learning model parameters, Abstract. FIG. 13 is an illustration of a computer system, Taylor [0045], [0059], [0108]), comprising:
although claim 20 directed to a system, it is similar in scope to claims 12 and 13. The method steps of claims 12 and 13 substantially encompass the system recited in claim 20. Therefore; claim 20 is rejected for at least the same reason as claims 12 and 13 above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0292589 A1, ‘Taylor’, hereafter) in view of Meardi et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0370624 A1, ‘Meardi’, hereafter) and further in view of Constantinescu et al. (US Patent No. 10,554,220 B1, ‘Constantinescu’, hereafter).
Regarding claim 17. Taylor and Meardi do not teach,
wherein the one or more first compute nodes comprise two or more compute nodes each providing the decompressed first data to one of two or more groups of compute nodes, wherein the one or more second compute nodes are divided among the two or more groups of compute nodes, wherein each group of compute nodes performs at least one tasks among the one or more tasks that is different from tasks performed by other groups of compute nodes.
However, Constantinescu teaches
wherein the one or more first compute nodes comprise two or more compute nodes each providing the decompressed first data to one of two or more groups of compute nodes, wherein the one or more second compute nodes are divided among the two or more groups of compute nodes, wherein each group of compute nodes performs at least one tasks among the one or more tasks that is different from tasks performed by other groups of compute nodes (Constantinescu, Col 1, lines 20-32, Col 2, lines 52-64, Col 6, lines 9-67, Col 7, line – Col 8, line 4 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Taylor, Meardi and Constantinescu before him/her, to further modify Taylor with the teaching of Constantinescu’s managing compression and storage of genomic data. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of efficient automatic storage of genomic data (Constantinescu, Abstract and Col 1, lines 5-17).
Conclusion
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 HASANUL MOBIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1289. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM to 6:00PM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASANUL MOBIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168