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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejection made below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14, 16-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaganti et al. (US 11252327, hereinafter Chaganti in view of Van Veldhuisen (US 20150281752, hereinafter Van Veldhuisen.)
Regarding claim 1, “A computer-implemented method for storing data across cloud regions, the method comprising” Chaganti teaches (4:57-5:2 and 5:17-30) each of the edge devices (100) and back up storages are implemented as a computing device (see e.g., FIG. 11). The computing device may be, for example, a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a server, a distributed computing system, or a cloud resource. The computing device may include one or more processors, memory (e.g., random access memory), and persistent storage (e.g., disk drives, solid state drives, etc.). The computing device may include instructions, stored on the persistent storage, that when executed by the processor(s) of the computing device cause the computing device to perform the functionality of an edge device (e.g., 100A) and backup storage (e.g., 120A) described throughout this application.
As to “storing first data and first metadata in a first datastore included in a first cloud region included in a plurality of cloud regions, wherein the first metadata is associated with the first data” Chaganti teaches (10:53-56) the edge storage (112) stores data. The data stored in edge storage (112) may include video data and video metadata (both discussed below, see FIG. 2B); (13:11-30 and 15:36-51) data structure where data is stored is a database; (3:62-4:6 and Fig. 1A) the system includes a plurality of edge devices 100A, 100B, …100N with backup storage 120A, 120B,… 120N respectively.
As to “and replicating the first metadata from the first datastore to a corresponding datastore...” Chaganti teaches (18:44-49 and 33:20-43) the DPU sends the video data chunks (306A, 306B) and copies of portions of the indexing metadata (312) to the backup storage (330), where video data chunks (306A, 306B) and the copies of portions of the indexing metadata (312) are stored in primary storage (332) as processed primary storage video data (334). See Fig. 3B.
Chaganti does not teach replicating the first metadata from the first datastore to a corresponding datastore “in each other cloud region included in the plurality of cloud regions.” However, Van Veldhuisen teaches (¶0031) An edge server in the adaptive streaming network, such as edge server 110, may refer to a server that resides on the edge between two networks, typically a private network and the Internet. Edge servers can serve different purposes depending on the context of the functionality in question. The CDN may receive media content and replicate it to many or all of its Edge cache servers. The end-user requests the stream and is redirected to the “closest” Edge server; (¶0027 and Fig. 1) media content with metadata 123. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as taught by Chaganti with the replication to all Edge cache servers as taught by Van Veldhuisen for the benefit of faster content access by clients and guarantee consistent quality of service.
Regarding claim 2, “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to configuration information indicating to replicate the first data, replicating the first data from the first datastore to a second datastore.” Caganti teaches (24:6-16 and 33:20-43) The DPU may send a message to the backup storage through the non-local connection. The message may include the video data chunks, the copies of the storage tier metadata, and a request to store the video data chunks, and the copies of the storage tier metadata in the appropriate storages of the backup storage. In response to obtaining the message, the backup storage may store each of the video data chunks and the copies of storage tier metadata associated with each video data chunk in the appropriate storage based on the storage tier metadata.
Regarding claim 4, “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first data is stored in a first physical storage included in the first datastore, and the first metadata is stored in a second physical storage included in the first datastore.” Caganti teaches (11:20-33 and 12:64-13:2) Edge storage (112) may be implemented using physical storage devices and/or logical storage devices. The physical storage devices may include any combination of hard disk drives, solid state disk drives, tape drives, random-access memory (RAM), and/or any other physical storage mediums for the storage of data; (15:36-47) any of the aforementioned data structures (e.g., 202, 204, 206, 208, 210, 212) may be divided into any number of data structures, combined with any number of other data structures, and may include additional, less, and/or different information without departing from the invention. Any of the aforementioned data structures may be stored in different locations (e.g., in persistent storage of other computing devices) and/or spanned across any number of computing devices without departing from the invention; (10:58-11:19) storing video data and metadata in different memories.
Regarding claim 5, “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first metadata is replicated by a storage engine associated with the first datastore.” Caganti teaches (18:44-49 and 33:20-43) the DPU sends the video data chunks (306A, 306B) and copies of portions of the indexing metadata (312) to the backup storage (330). Examiner contends that since the DPU handles the storage it qualifies as a storage engine under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 8, “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises media content data.” Caganti teaches (1:20-21) for video data.
Regarding claim 9, “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises manifest information associated with media content data.” Caganti teaches (19:58-20:12 and 6:29-42) The DPU may generate and include a stream identifier associated with the video data chunks in the indexing metadata. The DPU may generate and include a video data chunk identifier associated with each video data chunk in the indexing metadata. The DPU may generate and include start times and stop times of each video data chunk in the indexing metadata.
Regarding claim 11, “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the steps of” Chaganti teaches (44:11-16) One or more embodiments of the invention may be implemented using instructions executed by one or more processors of the data management device. Further, such instructions may correspond to computer readable instructions that are stored on one or more non-transitory computer readable mediums
The remainder of claim 11 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore its rejection is similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, its rejection is similar to claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, its rejection is similar to claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the first data comprises media content data or manifest information associated with media content data.” Caganti teaches (1:20-30) for video data and metadata.
Regarding claim 17, “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, further comprising receiving the first data from a first encoding pipeline that encodes media content data.” Chaganti teaches (39:5-6) the video data chunks are encoded into a single stream
Regarding claim 20, its rejection is similar to claims 1 and 11.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen in view of Mang et al. (US 20230209113, hereinafter Mang.)
Regarding claim 3, Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen do not teach “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from a live origin server included in a second cloud region, a request for the first data from the first datastore based on the first metadata replicated to a second datastore.” However, Mang teaches (¶0033) the origin server 290 may also store and make available data structures or directories (e.g., manifest files) for different content; (¶0034) the manifest file or other data structures associated with content stored on the origin server 290 may direct client device 280 to obtain portions of the content (e.g., video chunks of a video program) from content server 276 or 278, which may or may not already have stored copies of the portions of the content. A manifest file, for example, may provide uniform resource locators (URLs) and/or uniform resource identifiers (URIs) for different video chunks which resolve to the content servers 276 or 278; (¶0038) the origin server 290 may return the requested portion(s) of the content to ingest server 272, which may forward the portion(s) of the content to content server 276, and which may also store the portion(s) of the content and/or distribute the portion(s) of the content to other devices in CDN 270; (¶0021) live content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of generating a backup storage of metadata as taught by Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen with the origin server that provides content based on a manifest data as taught by Mang for the benefit of providing a better customer expereinece (e.g., shorter video buffering, see ¶0002.)
Regarding claim 13, its rejection is similar to claim 3.
Claim(s) 6-7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen in view of Luo (US 20210400317.)
Regarding claim 6, Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen do not teach “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first metadata comprises a key and a value pointing to the first data stored in the first datastore.” However, Luo teaches (¶0032) after obtaining the metadata instance, the proxy server may store the identifier of the target video and the metadata instance in a key-value manner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of having a backup storage as taught by Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen to have metadata in a key-value manner as taught by Luo for the benefit of facilitating subsequent query of the media (¶0032.)
Regarding claim 7, Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen do not teach “The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the key is associated with the first cloud region.” Luo further teaches (¶0032) the proxy server may store the identifier of the target video and the metadata instance in a key-value manner; (¶0007) target video resides in the origin server which the proxy server requests from. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of having a backup storage as taught by Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen to have metadata in a key-value manner as taught by Luo for the benefit of facilitating subsequent query of the media (¶0032.)
Regarding claim 15, its rejection is similar to claim 6.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen in view of Borlick et al. (US 20170279890, hereinafter Borlick.)
Regarding claim 10, Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen do not teach “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first metadata is replicated from the first datastore to the second datastore asynchronously.” However, Borlick teaches (¶0043) the remote copying of data (e.g., an asynchronous remote copy, etc.) from the first cloud server 602 to the second cloud server 606. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of having a backup storage as taught by Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen with the asynchronous copying as taught by Borlick for the benefit of higher throughput and avoiding network delays (primary storage location wouldn’t need to wait for backup to confirm receipt.)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen in view of Wu et al. (US 10045053, hereinafter Wu.)
Regarding claim 18, Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen do not teach “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein the second cloud region is associated with a second encoding pipeline that encodes media content data.” However, Wu teaches (2:54-3:15) Broadcast content source 116 is delivered to live encoder 114, which encodes source live content fragments 128b and stores them in database 112b. Source advertisement fragments 128a are stored in database 112a, and source live content fragments 128b are stored in database 112b. Encoders 108a and 108b request source live content fragments 128b and source advertisement fragments 128a and re-encodes source advertisement fragments 128a and source live content fragments 128b according to variable bitrate encoding techniques to generate a variety of playback options for each fragment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of having a backup storage as taught by Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen with the re-encoding as taught by Wu for the benefit of generating a variety of playback options for each fragment allowing for playback in different resolutions/bitrates for different devices and/or bandwidth constraints.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen in view of Allen (US 20040078814.)
Regarding claim 19, Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen do not teach “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein storing the first data and the first metadata in the first datastore comprises writing the first data and the first metadata to a quorum of servers in the first datastore.” However, Allen teaches (¶0045) the various servers and their components (such as the feed engine 204 and the database 208) can be distributed elsewhere in the system 100, in addition to the locations shown in FIG. 2. There may be multiple feed servers 202, production servers 206 and databases 208, distribution servers 218, and so on. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of having a backup storage as taught by Chaganti and Van Veldhuisen with the distribution of the database additionally in other servers as taught by Allen for the benefit of load balancing, redundancy in case of outages or broken connections (¶0045.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grace (US 20230119006) – (¶0047) each of the plurality of edge nodes 110 is configured to store copies of content on edge location caches.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK J JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9629. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-3:00PM EST.
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, Brian T. Pendleton can be reached on 571-272-7527. 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.
/Frank Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights