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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,5,14,15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kumar (US 2020/0374586 A1)
As per claim 1, Kumar teaches A computer-implemented method for determining one or more content types to provide in response to a request for content, comprising:
based on receiving a content request at a first location, identifying content-location pairs that each include a content format type from multiple content format types and a distribution location from multiple distribution locations; (Kumar [0066] At step 602, the media content application receives, at a user device, a request to receive a media content item using a first application from a first content provider. In some embodiments, the request may be received from a user input interface on the user device ( e.g., a touchscreen selection of a movie from Hulu). In some embodiments, the request may be based on stored user preferences (e.g., the user defaults to receiving media content items from Hulu). In some embodiments, the user need only select a media content item title and in response, the media content application automatically selects which content provider to use ( e.g., based on the performance scores of content providers or user preferences). The media content application may receive the media content item from a cloud-based server or any other remote server whose transmission performance of the media content item may be characterized using a CCE score. In some embodiments, the CCE score is based on any one or more suitable QoS parameters such as bit error rate (BER), video resolution, transmission delay, frame rate, any other suitable communications).
determining a content-location pair value for each content-location pair;
(Kumar see Fig 3 Block 308 shows different formats (i.e. frame rate, etc) Block 320 shows score calculator for each content provider) )
comparing a first content-location pair value for a first content-location pair of the content-location pairs to a resource capacity policy to determine a first utility score for the first content-location pair; (Kumar [0016] CCE score may be a weighted sum of QoS characteristic values, where each of the characteristic values is determined using current communications network conditions. The value of the weights may be based on user preference, tailored for a specific content provider, location, or time of day, or a combination of the two. User preference may also affect the content providers that the media content application determines CCE scores for. For example, when the media content application searches for a second content provider that offers the media content item currently being provided from a first content provider, the media content application limits, based on a user preference to not pay for an additional content subscription, search results to only the content providers to which the user is already subscribed. [0032] Characteristic Aggregator 314 may receive QoS characteristic values determined from a separate server or the QoS characteristic values determined from the user device (e.g., the QoS characteristic values experienced by user device 102 or 202 when receiving a media content item from a content provider server). QoS characteristic value sets 316 and 318 are used by CCE Score Calculator 320, which calculates respective CCE scores using weight information 308 taken from database 304. The weights may be catered to each QoS characteristic for all content providers and applications (e.g., “W.sub.1” identifies the weight used for video resolution for all content providers and their applications) or catered to each QoS characteristic for a specific content provider and its application (e.g., “W.sub.1_Hulu” identifies the weight used for video resolution for Hulu and its Hulu media player application). The weights may be normalized or manipulated if applied to a QoS characteristic having a property for which a higher score does not indicate an improved performance (e.g., a weight for BER may be represented by a value of (1−W) if weight “W” is normalized to a value between 0 and 1 because a higher BER is not preferred). CCE Score Calculator 320 implements a weighted sum algorithm in CCE scores calculations 322 and 324. See paragraph 73 which mentions cost which can form part o capacity policy)
The examiner is treating this “resource capacity policy” according to what is discloses in the specification ([0016] Additionally, the content capacity system generates and implements a resource capacity policy that indicates expected computational costs for generating content items of each content type at each distribution location).
based on the first content-location pair having a highest utility score among utility scores associated with the content-location pairs, providing a first content format type and a first distribution location of the first content-location pair in response to the content request. (Kumar [0017] The choice may include one other provider that the media content application has determined to have the highest CCE score improvement over the current provider's CCE score, a list of content providers that all have higher CCE scores than the current provider's, or a list of all content providers [0022] Metadata 108 includes CCE scores for the current content provider and other content providers. The CCE score of the current provider, Amazon Prime, is depicted to be 810. The CCE scores of other providers, such as Hulu, Crackle, and Netflix, are depicted as 840, 775, and 875, respectively, for the location 106 and the associated time. In some embodiments, a weighted sum of QoS characteristic values obtained for each QoS characteristic is used to calculate a CCE score. [0073] At step 616, the media content application provides, at the user device using the second application, the media content item from the second content provider)
As per claim 5, Kumar teaches wherein the resource capacity policy indicates a computational cost for generating a content item of a target content format type item at a target distribution location. (Kumar [0073] At step 616, the media content application provides, at the user device using the second application, the media content item from the second content provider. The media content application may have access to the second content provider's software application (i.e., the second application), through an API, for it to execute the application and present the media content item on the user device. A notification may be generated before, during, or after the media content item is provided from the second content provider. The notification provides information to the user regarding the selection of a content provider or switch between content providers, which may include the CCE scores for the user device to receive the media content item from the first content provider and the second provider, improvements to the performance obtained by the second content provider, and prices associated with the cost of obtaining the media content item from the second content provider. The notification may list the aforementioned information associated with not only the second content provider but also other content providers offering the media content item).
As per claim 14, Kumar teaches further comprising determining the first utility score for the first content-location pair based on comparing the first content-location pair value for the first content-location pair to a computational cost for providing the first content-location pair. (Kumar [0073] At step 616, the media content application provides, at the user device using the second application, the media content item from the second content provider. The media content application may have access to the second content provider's software application (i.e., the second application), through an API, for it to execute the application and present the media content item on the user device. A notification may be generated before, during, or after the media content item is provided from the second content provider. The notification provides information to the user regarding the selection of a content provider or switch between content providers, which may include the CCE scores for the user device to receive the media content item from the first content provider and the second provider, improvements to the performance obtained by the second content provider, and prices associated with the cost of obtaining the media content item from the second content provider. The notification may list the aforementioned information associated with not only the second content provider but also other content providers offering the media content item).
As per claim 15, Kumar teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein: the computational cost for providing the first content-location pair is based on applying computational costs in the resource capacity policy for distribution location resources to resources needed to process content items of the first content format type at the first distribution location; and the computational costs are combined and compared to the first content-location pair value to generate the first utility score for the first content-location pair. (Kumar [0073] At step 616, the media content application provides, at the user device using the second application, the media content item from the second content provider. The media content application may have access to the second content provider's software application (i.e., the second application), through an API, for it to execute the application and present the media content item on the user device. A notification may be generated before, during, or after the media content item is provided from the second content provider. The notification provides information to the user regarding the selection of a content provider or switch between content providers, which may include the CCE scores for the user device to receive the media content item from the first content provider and the second provider, improvements to the performance obtained by the second content provider, and prices associated with the cost of obtaining the media content item from the second content provider. The notification may list the aforementioned information associated with not only the second content provider but also other content providers offering the media content item).
As per claim 17, Kumar teaches determining the utility scores for the content-location pairs based on the resource capacity policy; and determining that the first content-location pair has the highest utility score based on the first utility score being higher than other utility scores determined for the content-location pairs. (Kumar [0017] When the media content application has determined that the user device is able to receive the media content item from a second content provider with a higher CCE score, the media content application acts to switch the first content provider to the second content provider. For example, the media content application automatically switches between content providers using the APIs for the respective content providers, optionally giving the user a notification that the switch has occurred. In some embodiments, the media content application provides notifications to allow the user to choose whether she or he wants to switch over to a different content provider. The choice may include one other provider that the media content application has determined to have the highest CCE score improvement over the current provider's CCE score, a list of content providers that all have higher CCE scores than the current provider's, or a list of all content providers, regardless of whether their CCE score is an improvement, that offer the media content item. These notifications are generated before, during, or after the switch between providers. If the media content application has automatically switched content providers, it may also present an option to switch back to the previous content provider should the user change his or her mind. The media content application may switch between content providers with minimal interruption to the user by resuming the media content item from the second content provider at the playback time to which it was last consumed from the first content provider. For example, the media content application may determine a timestamp to which the media content item was last being provided from the first content provider (e.g., the 35-minute mark) and a content segment associated with that timestamp (e.g., the fifth scene). The media content application then determines at which time the fifth scene appears in the media content item provided by the second content provider (e.g., the 25-minute mark, because the second content provider cut the fourth scene from its version). The media content application may then determine the appropriate time to resume playback in the media content item from the second content provider. [0031] FIG. 3 shows a block diagram of an illustrative content provider determination system 300, in accordance with some embodiments of the disclosure. User devices 102 and 202 may employ media content application 300 for determining content providers with the highest CCE scores. Content Consumption Experience Manager 302 may be a library of functions such as Quality-of-Service Aggregator 314, CCE Score Calculator 320, and Score Comparer 326. CCE Manager 302 accesses database 304 for user subscription information 306 and weight information 308. Database 304 holds user preferences, which include the content providers that the user device is authenticated to access (e.g., subscribed content providers) and weights that may be based on user preferences (e.g., a larger weight placed on video resolution because the user prefers high definition regardless of buffering, delay, or subscription price).
As per claim 19, Kumar teaches comprising instructions that, when executed by the processing system, cause the system to carry out operations comprising: receiving the content request at the first location to provide a content item to a client device; and using the first content format type to identify the content item to provide to the client device from the first distribution location. (Kumar Fig 3 Block 328 shows content item with format type)
With respect to claim 20, it differs from claim 1. The only difference is this limitation “adjusting the content-location pair value for each content-location pair based on feasibility between the first location and the multiple distribution locations included in each content-location pair;”. Paragraph 14 of the specification mentions “Furthermore, many of the generated content items cannot be feasibly provided to a target client device due to geography, latency, or other constraints”.
The examiner will interpret this to mean excluding certain content from consideration due to several factors (geography etc). Kumar mentions this in several places ([0003] in response to determining that an adequate performance is not achievable from the first content provider, a resumption time is determined within the media content item from the second content provider and the media content item is provided, for display at the user device using the second application, at the resumption time within the media content item, from the second content provider. [0030] FIG. 2B illustrates notification 208b generated by the media content application on user interface 200B of user device 202 while providing a media content item from content provider 206b. Notification 208b is generated in response to a user selection of confirmation button 210 of FIG. 2A or to a switch to content provider 206b without user input. The media content application monitors performance from the content provider that is currently providing the media content item displayed on user device 202 and uses a predetermined CCE score (e.g., a historic CCE score) to determine that an adequate performance level is not achievable (e.g., the current CCE score is less than the historic CCE score).
As to claims 18 and 20, they are rejected based on the same reason as claim 1.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2020/0374586 A1) in view of Li (US 2008/0320501 A1) in further view of Lee (US 2023/0032185 A1).
As per claim 2, Kumar does not teach the first content-location pair value is based on an initial content-location pair value and an adjusted value; and the adjusted value modifies the initial content-location pair value based on geographical constraints.
However, Li teaches the first content-location pair value is based on an initial content-location pair value and an adjusted value; and the adjusted value modifies the initial content-location pair value based on geographical constraints (Li [0132] In order to dynamically update the aggregate computer system 100 list in the control center user interface, there is a thread (e.g., ConnectionMaintainThread( )) created for connection maintenance between computing machines. This thread tries to connect each computing machine in the device provider list to see whether the device provider is still connectable. If the connection attempt fails, that is, the device provider has disappeared in the network, the device provider is removed from the device provider list. In one example, the thread waits for fifteen seconds after every provider in the list is checked).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li with the system of Kumar to modify the initial content-location pair value based on geographical constraints. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Li into the system of Kumar for the purpose of providing flexible computing environments that are also stable and reliable. (Li paragraph 21)
Kumar and Li do not teach latency constraints.
However, Lee teaches latency constraints (Lee [0132] The AF 380 of the 3rd CSP receiving the event report of step 310 may determine that an adequate edge computing service may not be provided, because the latency exceeds the threshold. Alternatively, the AF 380 of the 3rd CSP may request the traffic steering from the 3GPP system to use a new routing path to reduce the latency again, or perform an application server relocation procedure to drive the edge application server closer to the UE, and to transmit the application traffic of the UE to the edge application server newly driven. Alternatively, if exceeding the set latency threshold, the AF 380 of the 3rd CSP may determine that an error has occurred in the provision of the edge computing service, and thus reduce charging to the application service provider, or record to reduce charging information to be paid by the 3rd CSP to the MNO).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lee with the system of Kumar and Li to use latency constraints. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Lee into the system of Kumar and Li for the purpose of supporting an edge computing service in the wireless communication system. (Lee paragraph 01)
As per claim 3, Li teaches the geographical constraints indicate available connections for providing content items between the multiple distribution locations; and a content-location pair value for a content-location pair is set to at or below zero when a connection is not available between the first location and a distribution location included in the content-location pair. (Li [0132] In order to dynamically update the aggregate computer system 100 list in the control center user interface, there is a thread (e.g., ConnectionMaintainThread( )) created for connection maintenance between computing machines. This thread tries to connect each computing machine in the device provider list to see whether the device provider is still connectable. If the connection attempt fails, that is, the device provider has disappeared in the network, the device provider is removed from the device provider list. In one example, the thread waits for fifteen seconds after every provider in the list is checked).
As per claim 4, Lee teaches the latency constraints indicate connection times for providing content items between the multiple distribution locations; a content-location pair value for a content-location pair is set to at or below zero if latency between the first location and a distribution location included in the content-location pair is above a threshold delivery time; and the threshold delivery time corresponds to a duration within which a content item is to be provided to a client device from the content request. (Lee [0132] The AF 380 of the 3rd CSP receiving the event report of step 310 may determine that an adequate edge computing service may not be provided, because the latency exceeds the threshold. Alternatively, the AF 380 of the 3rd CSP may request the traffic steering from the 3GPP system to use a new routing path to reduce the latency again, or perform an application server relocation procedure to drive the edge application server closer to the UE, and to transmit the application traffic of the UE to the edge application server newly driven. Alternatively, if exceeding the set latency threshold, the AF 380 of the 3rd CSP may determine that an error has occurred in the provision of the edge computing service, and thus reduce charging to the application service provider, or record to reduce charging information to be paid by the 3rd CSP to the MNO).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2020/0374586 A1) in view of Ramer (US 2013/0254035 Al) in further view of Hasek (US 2015/0222938 A1)
As per claim 6, Kumar does not teach further comprising determining computational demand parameters for the first distribution location based on: an average number of expected content requests per second expected in a next time period.
However, Ramer teaches further comprising determining computational demand parameters for the first distribution location based on: an average number of expected content requests per second expected in a next time period; (Ramer [0815] In embodiments, service metrics reports may detail and summarize data regarding the operation of servers, including, average requests per second, peak requests per second, requests/second distribution, maximum request size, and/or the average response time. [0891] A website or webpage (and associated mobile content) may be delivered to and displayed (or played such as for video or audio) on a mobile communication facility 102 based on a variety of actions or conditions. One such action is the user explicitly requesting the website or from the wireless provider 108. As a result of the request, the wireless provider 108 may select mobile content from a variety sources of mobile content such that the selected mobile content may have a relevance to the user and/or the website).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ramer with the system of Kumar to determine computational demand parameters. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Ramer into the system of Kumar for the purpose of aggregating, and delivering behavioral data and other data that may be associated with wireless subscribers, to an ad server, publisher, or some other party that may use the data for a commercial purpose. (Ramer paragraph 06)
Kumar and Ramer do not teach a distribution of content items of the expected content requests in the next time period based on combinations of the multiple content format types and the multiple distribution locations.
However, Hasek teaches a distribution of content items of the expected content requests in the next time period based on combinations of the multiple content format types and the multiple distribution locations. (Hasek [0055] In a twelfth aspect of the invention, a method of providing cached content in a network is disclosed. In one embodiment, the method includes receiving content in a first format from a content source, receiving requests for the content in at least one second format, evaluating the received requests to generate a prediction of future demand for the content in at least one second format, and when the prediction for the content in at least one second format reaches a predetermined threshold, caching the content in the at least one second format).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hasek with the system of Kumar and Ramer to use combinations of the multiple content format types and the multiple distribution locations. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Hasek into the system of Kumar and Ramer for the purpose of maximizing network efficiency. (Hasek paragraph 04)
Claims 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2020/0374586 A1) in view of Ramer (US 2013/0254035 Al) in further view of Hasek (US 2015/0222938 A1) and Muthukrishnan (US 2011/0218865 A1)
As per claim 7, Kumar, Ramer and Hasek do not teach further comprising determining computational capacity parameters for the first distribution location based on a maximum number of computational calls per second in the next time period for resources at the first distribution location.
However, Muthukrishnan teaches further comprising determining computational capacity parameters for the first distribution location based on a maximum number of computational calls per second in the next time period for resources at the first distribution location. (Muthukrishnan [0019] A content distribution system selectively requests bids from content item providers so that the rate at which each different content item provider is requested to provide a bid is within a maximum rate at which the content item provider is able to respond to requests (e.g., based on available computing resources of the content item provider). For example, the content distribution system can monitor, for each content item provider, an actual rate at which the content distributor has provided bids, and compare this actual rate to a maximum rate at which the content item provider can respond (e.g., as specified by the content item provider or as determined by an analysis historical data). If the actual rate is less than (or equal to) the maximum rate, the content item provider is included in a set of eligible content item providers that are eligible (e.g., based on available computing resources) to provide bids in response to the request)
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Muthukrishnan with the system of Kumar and Ramer and Hasek to determine computational capacity parameters. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Muthukrishnan into the system of Kumar and Ramer and Hasek for the purpose of selecting eligible content item providers that are eligible to respond to a next content request. (Muthukrishnan paragraph 06)
As per claim 8, Kumar teaches further comprising generating a usage matrix that indicates resources needed to process each of the content-location pairs, wherein the usage matrix includes a table that correlates resources at each of the multiple distribution locations with the content format type and the distribution location making up each of the content-location pairs. (Kumar Fig 1 and Fig 2A and Fig 2B and Fig 3)
As per claim 9, Kumar teaches wherein the usage matrix indicates that a first resource at the first distribution location and a second resource at the first distribution location are needed to process content items of the first content format type at the first distribution location. (Kumar Fig 1 and Fig 2A and Fig 2B and Fig 3)
As per claim 10, Kumar teaches comprising generating the resource capacity policy based on the computational demand parameters, the computational capacity parameters, and the usage matrix, wherein the resource capacity policy indicates current computational costs for utilizing the resources at each of the multiple distribution locations. (Kumar Fig 3)
As per claim 12, Kumar teaches wherein the resource capacity policy is generated in a previous time period before receiving the content request. (Kumar [0023] In some embodiments, the media content application compares the current CCE to a predetermined minimum score, determines that the content consumption experience is temporary, and the system continues to provide the content from the current content provider. If the train route is taken routinely, the media content application may have logged previous calculations of the CCE score at location 106. The media content application may compare the current CCE score for Amazon Prime to previously calculated CCE scores for Hulu at location 106, at a similar hour of the day, or a combination of the two (e.g., recorded CCE scores for Hulu taken at location 106 at 7 AM). This allows the media content application to determine, using the historic CCE scores associated with a second content provider, if the second content provider has a record for performing better or worse than the predetermined minimum score. In turn, the media content application determines whether to switch to the second application of the second content provider. [0077] At step 704, the media content application obtains, from the database, a plurality of previous CCE scores that were stored either at step 702 or stored by other user devices. The media content application may be communicatively coupled to a server housing previous CCE scores. [0078] At step 706, the media content application determines if the database has a previous CCE score for the first content provider at the current time and the current location. It should be noted that for this step, the media content application is not restricted to an exact time and location match for determining appropriate CCE scores. The media content application employs a margin of error for the time to determine that previous CCE scores that were taken a certain number of units of time before or after the current time recorded in step 702 are acceptable. Comparisons to the current time are interpreted to mean comparisons to a time that is relative to a beginning of a day (e.g., times that were both taken 8 hours and 4 minutes after midnight are considered as being the same time regardless of the day the time was measured). Similarly, the media content application employs a margin of error for the location to determine that previous CCE scores that were taken within a predefined proximity of the current location recorded in step 702 are acceptable. If the media content application determines that there is not a previous CCE score for the first content provider that was recorded within a margin of error of the current time and location, the media content application returns to step 604 to calculate another CCE score for the user device to receive the media content item from the first content provider. If the media content application determines that there is a previous CCE score for the first content provider that was recorded within a margin of error of the current time and location, the media content application proceeds to step 708.)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2020/0374586 A1) in view of Ramer (US 2013/0254035 Al) in further view of Hasek (US 2015/0222938 A1) and Muthukrishnan (US 2011/0218865 A1) and Ray (US 2017/0208370 Al)
As per claim 11, Kumar, Ramer and Hasek and Muthukrishnan do not teach wherein the resource capacity policy is determined by solving a linear optimization problem based on the computational demand parameters, the computational capacity parameters, and the usage matrix.
However, Ray teaches wherein the resource capacity policy is determined by solving a linear optimization problem based on the computational demand parameters, the computational capacity parameters, and the usage matrix. (Ray [0199] The technology herein makes it possible to solve advertising scheduling problems involving soft constraints by using one or more of partial CSPs (PCSPs) or weighted CSPs (WCSPs), in which an algorithm is used to minimize soft constraint violations. In general, CSPs do not easily incorporate secondary goals (i.e. a list of business goals ranked in order or preference). Where multiple goals with weighted preferences exist, the use of linear programming (LP) is generally more effective. Hence the underlying constraint satisfaction technology as used herein can use a combination of PCSPs and linear programming to integrate hard and soft constraints. The output is a suggestive placement of advertisements within available advertising inventory that maximizes revenue while satisfying a plurality of constraints. In this way it is possible to produce solutions that satisfy a subset of the total number of constraints)
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ray with the system of Kumar and Ramer and Hasek and Muthukrishnan to use linear optimization. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Ray into the system of Kumar and Ramer and Hasek and Muthukrishnan for the purpose of targeting advertising content to consumers. (Ray paragraph 03)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2020/0374586 A1) in view of Rigor (US 2020/0068242 A1)
As per claim 13, Kumar does not teach wherein the resource capacity policy is regenerated in near-real time based on destination location resource usage in current and previous time periods.
However, Rigor teaches wherein the resource capacity policy is regenerated in near-real time based on destination location resource usage in current and previous time periods. (Rigor [0047] Third-party content providers 310 and 320 may perform (at 4 and 4′) a relatively slow selection operation to select targeted secondary content for client-device 140-1 based on user specific (e.g., age, income range, and/or preferences) and/or session specific information (e.g., prior search history, prior purchase history, cart information, location, etc.) obtained for a user of the client device 140-1 and/or client device 140-1, and/or a real-time bidding process. Third-party content provider 310 may then provide (at 5) the secondary content targeted on the obtained user and/or session specific information to client device 140-1, and third-party content provider 320 may provide (at 5′) additional secondary content to client 140-1).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rigor with the system of Kumar to regenerate capacity policy. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Rigor into the system of Kumar for the purpose of performing the progressive delivery of the targeted third-party content. (Rigor paragraph 08)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2020/0374586 A1) in view of Klinker (US 2004/0249971 A1)
As per claim 16, Kumar does not teach determining the utility scores for the content-location pairs based on the resource capacity policy; and dropping one or more of the content-location pairs that have a utility score below zero.
However, Klinker teaches determining the utility scores for the content-location pairs based on the resource capacity policy; and dropping one or more of the content-location pairs that have a utility score below zero. (Klinker [0055] A, experiences a performance problem, the problem can be avoided by the DNS dynamically resolving the name to an IP address from block B and instead passes that address on to the client. Then all subsequent client transactions will arrive at the side inbound from provider B and via router 240 to access the application 250, as shown in FIG. 3B. Likewise, if the load on provider A is exceeding minimum cost thresholds, as determined by the data network controller, subsequent requests can be sent to provider B. Thus, FIGS. 3A-B shows how using multiple IP addresses and a dynamic DNS can provide inbound routing alternatives for the multi-homed business).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Klinker with the system of Kumar to drop one or more of the content-location pairs. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Klinker into the system of Kumar for the purpose of routing accesses to online content. (Klinker paragraph 15)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12342007 B2 – discloses educing latency in content and content source switching in a digital content delivery network. In one embodiment, linear addressable secondary content is “switched into” primary content within a cloud-based model using one or more latency-reducing techniques so as to minimize the user's perception of delay in performing the switch. In one implementation, secondary content video encodings are selected based on the encoding scheme of the primary content, and open GOPs within the primary content at the content transition point are closed or avoided, each to reduce processing overhead of the recipient client device. In another implementation, otherwise cloud-inaccessible functionality of the client device is accessed to reduce or suspend processing on non-essential tasks to make more processing resources available at the client. In yet another implementation, intelligent RF PHY scheduling of the primary and secondary content are utilized to minimize RF re-tuning by the client.
US 20240161412 A1 – discloses receiving a first request for a first communication service from a first end user device operated by a first user, where the first request provides or can be utilized to obtain first service information associated with first service parameters corresponding to the first user according to a first root ID provided to the first end user device by the first user; providing, over a network, first immersive media for presentation by the first end user device in response to the first request, where the first immersive media is provided utilizing the first network slice, the first spectrum resource allocation, and the first RAT that are selected according to the first service parameters. Other embodiments are disclosed.
US 20240080526 A1 – discloses facilitating content adaptation to endpoints. First content that includes audio content and video content may be received. An adaptation protocol may be detected as applying to the first content based at least in part on one or more of a destination specification and/or an endpoint specification identified for the first content. The first content may be analyzed based at least in part on the adaptation protocol. A portion of the first content that has a content characteristic specified by the adaptation protocol may be determined. A set of rules governing content modification in accordance with the adaptation protocol may be identified. The first content may be modified in accordance with the adaptation protocol and the set of rules. The modified first content may be transferred so that the modified first content is accessible with an endpoint media device.
US 2014/0289322 A1 – discloses servicing content requests in a CDN may include receiving a request for content from a first client device, identifying content associated with the content request, identifying a second client device that stores the content, identifying a CDN storage location that also stores the content, determining whether the second client device is authorized to source the content to the first client device, and selecting a source for the content. The source for the content may be selected from the storage location associated with the CDN and the second client device. The source for the content may be selected based on one or more CDN policies. The method may also include initiating a transfer of the at least a portion of the content from the second client device to the first client device if the second client device is selected as the source for the content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAN KAMRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3401. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, April Blair can be reached on (571)270-1014. 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.
/MEHRAN KAMRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196
