DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 04 MAY 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-3, 6-10, 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larrew et al., US 2021/0409790 in view of Jain et al., US 2011/0149080 and further in view of Arikuma et al., US 2022/0182429.
Regarding claim 1, Larrew discloses a method of load management in a video management system, the system including a plurality of cameras and a plurality of nodes (system with plurality of cameras and nodes; Fig. 2, elements 110 and 120, and page 3, paragraph 34, and page 4, paragraph 36), the method comprising:
operating the cameras and the nodes with a first allocation of the plurality of cameras to respective nodes (system can provide at least a first allocation of the cameras to a plurality of camera nodes; page 5, paragraphs 44 and 48, and Fig. 8, elements 120 and 110);
monitoring utilization metrics for each camera at the respective node for each camera (system can perform monitoring of allocation parameters relating to each of the cameras and the allocated nodes; page 5, paragraphs 45-46, and wherein this can include metrics/parameters related to computational load, changed video data, priority, etc.; page 5, paragraph 49, and page 6, paragraph 52);
determining that a first node is imbalanced relative to at least one other node (can perform load balancing, i.e. responsive to determination of an imbalance; page 5, paragraphs 45-47, and page 6, paragraph 50);
in response to determining the first node is imbalanced determining a reallocation of the plurality of cameras to the plurality of nodes, resulting in a second allocation (system can determine different allocation of the cameras; pages 5-6, paragraph 49, and again based on load balancing; page 5, paragraphs 45-47, and page 6, paragraph 50); and
implementing the second allocation (reallocating the cameras based on the determination such that the changed allocation is implemented; page 6, paragraphs 50-51, and Fig. 9, elements 120 and 110).
While Larrew does allude to servers (web server(s); page 5, paragraph 42), as well as determining a reallocation (system can determine different allocation of the cameras; pages 5-6, paragraph 49, and again based on load balancing; page 5, paragraphs 45-47, and page 6, paragraph 50, Larrew does not explicitly disclose a plurality of video servers, including a first video server and a second video server;
determining comprises: generating a series of possible allocations of a plurality of cameras to a plurality of video servers;
analyzing each possible allocation to determine estimated total loads on each video server of the plurality of video servers, wherein each possible allocation is given a score based on the estimated total loads; and
selecting an allocation based on the score.
In a related art, Jain does disclose a plurality of video servers (with plurality of video servers, including at least a first and second; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19), including a first video server (with at least a first video server; Fig. 2, element 14-1, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19) and a second video server (with at least a second video server; Fig. 2, element 14-2, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Larrew and Jain by allowing the nodes of Larrew, which were already receiving and processing video data from cameras, to be implemented as video servers, in order to provide an improved system and method for convenient ways in which video cameras could be associated with a selected server (Jain; page 1, paragraph 5).
While Larrew in view of Jain does again disclose video servers (Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first and second; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19), Larrew in view of Jain does not explicitly disclose determining comprises: generating a series of possible allocations of a plurality of cameras to a plurality of servers;
analyzing each possible allocation to determine estimated total loads on each server of the plurality of servers, wherein each possible allocation is given a score based on the estimated total loads; and
selecting an allocation based on the score.
In a related art, Arikuma does disclose determining comprises: generating a series of possible allocations of a plurality of cameras to a plurality of servers (can determine various combinations of allocations of cameras and servers; page 7, paragraphs 76-77);
analyzing each possible allocation to determine estimated total loads on each server of the plurality of servers, wherein each possible allocation is given a score based on the estimated total loads (analysis and scoring the combination(s) based on loads; page 7, paragraphs 77 and 79, and page 8, paragraph 86, and page 8, paragraph 88, and wherein score(s) in relation to the processing load(s); page 5, paragraph 61, and in relation to load of the server(s); page 4, paragraph 52, and page 5, paragraph 57, and page 8, paragraph 92); and
selecting an allocation based on the score (allocation selection based on the score(s); page 8, paragraph 89, and changing allocation(s) based on load(s); page 9, paragraphs 93-95).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Larrew, Jain, and Arikuma by allowing the reallocations already being performed in Larrew in view of Jain to be done with a similar scheme used in Arikuma, in order to provide an improved information processing apparatus, a server allocation apparatus, a method, and a computer readable medium that are capable of reducing a delay time until a processing result is obtained while achieving a high node utilization rate (Arikuma; page 1, paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 2, Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma discloses analyzing a state of each of the plurality of cameras to determine whether any of the plurality of cameras cannot be currently re-allocated (Larrew; can determine particular state of a camera based on certain parameters, wherein this means the camera must remain connected/dedicated; page 6, paragraph 54) and, if so, designating such cameras as not floatable (Larrew; can designate/assign priority/high priority value to camera; page 6, paragraph 54); and
determining the reallocation without allowing reallocation of any not floatable cameras (Larrew; will change allocation by only dropping the non-priority/low priority camera(s); page 6, paragraph 54).
Regarding claim 3, Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma analyzing a state of each of the plurality of cameras to determine whether any of the plurality of cameras cannot be currently re-allocated (Larrew; can determine particular state of a camera based on certain parameters, wherein this means the camera must remain connected/dedicated; page 6, paragraph 54) and, if so, designating such cameras as not floatable and designating the remaining cameras as floatable cameras (Larrew; can designate/assign priority/high priority value to camera(s) that needs to remain connected/dedicated, and can assign priority/low priority value to camera(s) that do not need to remain connected/dedicated; page 6, paragraph 54); and
determining the reallocation by allowing reallocation of all of the plurality of cameras (Larrew; all of the cameras can have their allocation(s) changed based on a load balancing operation; page 6, paragraphs 50-54);
wherein the step of implementing the second allocation comprises reallocating at least one floatable camera at a first time, and reallocating at least one non-floatable camera at a second, later time (Larrew; at a first time, low priority camera(s) can be reallocated/dropped, and then at a later time, reallocation can be provided by load balancing even with the high priority camera(s); page 6, paragraph 54).
Regarding claim 6, Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma discloses determining that a second video server has failed and can no longer process data from at least a second camera allocated thereto under the first allocation, and in response, reallocating the second camera to another video server (Larrew; can determine failure/malfunction of previously allocated node, and can change allocation to different node(s); pages 5-6, paragraphs 49-50, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19).
Regarding claim 7, Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma discloses determining that a second video server has failed and can no longer process data from at least a second camera allocated thereto under the first allocation (Larrew; determining node has failure/malfunction and loses the ability to process the video data; pages 5-6, paragraph 49), and in response, determining a reallocation of the plurality of cameras to the plurality of video servers, less the second video server (Larrew; reallocation can occur without the second node; Fig. 9, elements 110 and 120, and page 6, paragraphs 50-51, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19).
Regarding claim 8, Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma discloses determining that a second video server has been compromised and has a reduced operational capacity in at least one of CPU capability, video server memory, video server disk queue, or network capacity (Larrew; can determine malfunction or condition of node that results in losing processing ability, i.e. losing/reduced processing/CPU ability; pages 5-6, paragraph 49, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19), and in response, determining a reallocation of the plurality of cameras to the plurality of video servers (performing reallocation(s); page 5, paragraph 49, and page 6, paragraphs 50, 53, and 54, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19), by updating an estimated capacity of the second video server (Larrew; reduced and restoration of available computational load, i.e. updated capacity, can result in reallocation based on load balancing; page 6, paragraph 54, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19).
Regarding claim 9, Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma discloses determining that a second video server is overloaded in at least one of CPU utilization, video server memory, video server disk queue, or network utilization (Larrew; can determine computational load, i.e. CPU use, is increased/over a threshold, i.e. overloaded; page 6, paragraph 53, and page 12, paragraphs 95 and 99, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19), and in response, determining a reallocation of the plurality of cameras to the plurality of video servers, less the second video server (Larrew; can reallocate to a second allocation based on the determination, wherein the second allocation does not include the second node; Fig. 9, elements 110 and 120, and page 6, paragraphs 50-51, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19).
Regarding claim 10, Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma discloses determining that the first video server is not overloaded by comparison of performance or utilization metrics of the first video server to one or more thresholds for overloading prior to determining that the first video server is imbalanced (Larrew; can determine computational load, use metric(s), related to a threshold for determining overloading, i.e. if under threshold, would not be considered overloaded; page 6, paragraph 53, and page 12, paragraphs 95 and 99, and can determine restoration of computational load, i.e. not overloaded and then perform load balancing operations; page 6, paragraph 54, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19).
Claim 13, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1.
Claim 14, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a plurality of cameras (Larrew; system with plurality of cameras and nodes; Fig. 2, elements 110 and 120, and page 3, paragraph 34, and page 4, paragraph 36);
a plurality of video servers (Larrew; system with plurality of cameras and nodes; Fig. 2, elements 110 and 120, and page 3, paragraph 34, and page 4, paragraph 36, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19); and
a network connecting the plurality of cameras to the plurality of video servers (Larrew; connected via network; Fig. 2, element 115, and page 3, paragraph 34).
Claim 15, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 16, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
due to expiration or ending of a process or condition involving the non-floatable camera (Larrew; reduced load followed by restoration of available computational load, i.e. expired/ended processing/condition relating to the allocation of the priority camera with the specific node, can result in reallocation based on load balancing; page 6, paragraph 54, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19).
Claim 19, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 6 and 7. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
communicate such failure, overload, or compromise to the video system controller (Larrew; allocator can be notified of unavailability/malfunction of node; page 5, paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 20, Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma discloses the video system controller is configured to determine that the first video server is imbalanced without the first video server determining a state of overload (Larrew; can receive notification of malfunction or other event of a particular node, i.e. not a determination of an overload, and can then perform load balancing due to imbalance; page 5, paragraph 46, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19).
Claims 4-5 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larrew et al., US 2021/0409790 in view of Jain et al., US 2011/0149080 and Arikuma et al., US 2022/0182429, and further in view of Davis et al., US 2018/0316753.
Regarding claim 4, Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the step of determining that the first video server is imbalanced (Larrew; can perform load balancing, i.e. responsive to determination of imbalance; page 5, paragraphs 45-47, and page 6, paragraph 50, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, a second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19), and operations at a video server controller (Larrew; with operations being performed at camera allocator; page 5, paragraph 44, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, a second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19).
Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma does not explicitly disclose determining comprises comparing, at least one of CPU utilization, server memory, server disk queue, or network utilization of a first server to that of a second server.
In a related art, Davis does disclose determining comprises comparing, at least one of CPU utilization, server memory, server disk queue, or network utilization of a first server to that of a second server (can determine overutilization, i.e. imbalance, based on comparison of a servers’ network bandwidth utilization with that of other servers; pages 4-5, paragraphs 46-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Larrew, Jain, Arikuma, and Davis by allowing imbalance determinations, as already disclosed in Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma, to include comparisons with other servers of the network, in order to provide an improved system and method for distributing content across a network of distributed servers (Davis; page 1, paragraph 6).
Claim 5, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
to that of an average of the plurality of video servers (Davis; based on average network bandwidth utilization of other servers, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, a second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19).
Claim 17, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 18, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larrew et al., US 2021/0409790 in view of Jain et al., US 2011/0149080 and Arikuma et al., US 2022/0182429, and further in view of Desai et al., US 2011/0078318.
Regarding claim 11, Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the video system controller is configured to determine the reallocation of the plurality of cameras to the plurality of video servers (Larrew; system can determine different allocation of the cameras; pages 5-6, paragraph 49, and again based on load balancing; page 5, paragraphs 45-47, and page 6, paragraph 50, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19), and utilization demands of the cameras on the video servers (Larrew; can determine computational load, i.e. CPU use/utilization demands; page 6, paragraph 53, and page 12, paragraphs 95 and 99, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19).
Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma does not explicitly disclose determining using estimates of peak resource utilization on the servers without identifying overload of any of a plurality of servers.
In a related art, Desai does disclose determining using estimates of peak resource utilization on the servers without identifying overload of any of a plurality of servers (system will not determine that a server of a plurality of servers is actually overloaded, but will make determination based on forecast/estimate of maximum load/use; page 10, paragraphs 80-82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Larrew, Jain, Arikuma, and Desai by allowing reallocations, as were already being performed in Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma, to be determined via forecasting/estimating techniques, in order to provide an improved system and method for load balancing techniques that utilize overbooking and forecasting (Desai; page 1, paragraph 5).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larrew et al., US 2021/0409790 in view of Jain et al., US 2011/0149080 and Arikuma et al., US 2022/0182429, and further in view of Rangan et al., US 11,838,193.
Regarding claim 12, Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the video system controller is configured to determine the first video server is imbalanced (Larrew; can perform load balancing, i.e. responsive to determination of imbalance; page 5, paragraphs 45-47, and page 6, paragraph 50, and Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19), and the first video server (Jain; with plurality of video servers, including at least a first, second, and others; Fig. 2, elements 14-1, 14-2, and 14-N, and page 1, paragraphs 17-19).
Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma does not explicitly disclose determining by analysis of time or CPU cycles required for a server to accomplish one or more tasks.
In a related art, Rangan does disclose determining by analysis of time or CPU cycles required for a server to accomplish one or more tasks (system can determine load based on analysis and comparing of latency/timing information from the various servers; col. 15, lines 37-57, and again with latency for performing tasks; col. 6, lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Larrew, Jain, Arikuma, and Rangan by allowing load balancing determinations, as already being performed in Larrew in view of Jain and Arikuma, to be based on other parameters, such as timing/latency, in order to provide an improved system and method for load limit measurements for a plurality of nodes, such measurements being performed in real-time, in a continuous manner to account for fluctuation in a maximum capacity for nodes (Rangan; col. 2, lines 15-20).
Conclusion
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 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 RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights