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 response (dated 18 MARCH 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-26 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 MARCH 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 10-12 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues (regarding at least claim 1) that the cited prior art combination of Ling (US 2014/0057555) and Cheng (US 2014/0171106) does not disclose all the claimed limitations. Specifically, Applicant argues that Ling does not disclose limitations relating to determining a location of a device based on a geographical location of a content access point. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As was shown in the previous rejection, Ling was cited as disclosing (among other things) determining a geographic location of the mobile computing device based on: the route, and a geographic location of the first content access point (see Ling; can determine approximate location/position based on communication with at least one geographically located instance communicated with along the route; page 7, paragraphs 73-74). In relation to this information, Ling clarifies it’s use, in that based on the route information and positioning information, system can determine that a device will be handed off from one system instance to another system instance, i.e. a location based on the system instance, wherein the system instances have particular locations, i.e. can determine a location/area of a device in relation to the route and the instance locations where coverage will be provided (see Ling; page 7, paragraph 74, and page 6, paragraph 69), and wherein related to specific/determined location(s) that the user/device are traveling in relation to a route and system instances (see Ling; page 6, paragraph 66, and Fig. 6, elements 602x, 606, 608, see heavy dashed line, and 100x). Applicant’s currently presented claim language does not explicitly disclose details on this determination step other than the “based on” limitations. With a broadest reasonable interpretation of the prior art in relation to the currently presented language, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found Ling’s cited recitations to cover said claimed limitations. Therefore, the prior art combination of Ling and Cheng, when taken together as a whole, does disclose these limitations relating to a determined location of a device.
Applicant also argues (again regarding at least claim 1) that the cited prior art combination does not disclose limitations related to "sending a second portion of the media content item, initially assigned to a second content access point of the route, to a third content access point of the route.". The Examiner again respectfully disagrees. As was shown in the previous rejection, Ling was cited as disclosing (among other things) after a determination, sending a second portion of the media content item, initially assigned to a second content access point of the route, to a third content access point of the route (see Ling; determination can be that a device will consume content at a location other than a predicted location, i.e. at instance 100i rather than 100i+1; page 7, paragraph 73, and adjustments of the caching/reservations for the instances can be made according to the determination of approximate position of device, i.e. such that the system will reallocate portions based on position being different from what was predicted, and as example, system can determine that a device will consume content at a location other than a predicted location, i.e. at instance 100i rather than 100i+1, and therefore instances 100i and 100i+1 can receive other data that they will need, i.e. portions originally for other instances; page 7, paragraph 73, and additionally, the system can also send overlapping portions of content to specific instances in certain situations; page 6, paragraph 70). That is, Ling discloses that determinations can be made and content can be adjusted, i.e. moved from original placements, at the instances in the system. As was also shown, Ling discloses that overlapping portions can be send to the instances, i.e. content that was initially assigned to a particular instance, i.e. second, can also be sent to another, i.e. third, instance. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found Ling’s cited recitations to cover said claimed limitations, and the prior art combination of Ling and Cheng, when taken together as a whole, does disclose these limitations relating to sending portions to particular access points.
Applicant additionally argues (again regarding claim 1) that the cited prior art combination does not disclose limitations related to "sending" being performed "after determining that a difference between the geographic location of the mobile computing device and a predicted geographic location of the mobile computing device satisfies a predetermined threshold value.". The Examiner again respectfully disagrees. As was shown in the previous rejection, Ling was cited as disclosing (among other things) after a determination, sending a second portion of the media content item, initially assigned to a second content access point of the route, to a third content access point of the route (see Ling; determination can be that a device will consume content at a location other than a predicted location, i.e. at instance 100i rather than 100i+1; page 7, paragraph 73, and adjustments of the caching/reservations for the instances can be made according to the determination of approximate position of device, i.e. such that the system will reallocate portions based on position being different from what was predicted, and as example, system can determine that a device will consume content at a location other than a predicted location, i.e. at instance 100i rather than 100i+1, and therefore instances 100i and 100i+1 can receive other data that they will need, i.e. portions originally for other instances; page 7, paragraph 73, and additionally, the system can also send overlapping portions of content to specific instances in certain situations; page 6, paragraph 70). The secondary prior art of Cheng was then brough in to cure any remaining deficiencies, in that Cheng was cited as disclosing (among other things) after determining a difference between a geographic location of a mobile computing device and a predicted geographic location of the mobile computing device satisfies a predetermined threshold value (see Cheng; if determination that difference between estimated location and actual location is greater than, i.e. satisfies, a threshold value, certain operations are then performed; page 2, paragraph 23, and page 5, paragraph 47). That is, as the primary reference of Ling was already shown to disclose the sending operation being performed after particular determinations, with Cheng brought in to show that certain operations (i.e. such as those disclosed in Ling) could be performed based on a determination of a location in relation to a threshold, as claimed. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found Ling’s and Cheng’s cited recitations to cover said claimed limitations, and the prior art combination of Ling and Cheng, when taken together as a whole, does disclose these limitations relating to sending in relation to a particular determination.
On page 12 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues (regarding at least claim 2) that the cited prior art combination of Ling and Cheng also does not disclose all these claimed limitations. Specifically, Applicant argues that Ling does not disclose "wherein determining the route is based on: a predicted duration of time the mobile computing device will be within range of each of the plurality of content access points, and a predicted transmission speed for each of the plurality of content access points.". The Examiner again respectfully disagrees. As was shown in the previous rejection, Ling was cited as disclosing (among other things) determining the route is based on: a predicted duration of time the mobile computing device will be within range of each of the plurality of content access points, and a predicted transmission speed for each of the plurality of content access points (see Ling; bandwidth necessary, i.e. relating to speed, for delivering the content for a respective/predicted time period in coverage area(s) for a particular route(s); page 6, paragraph 72, and page 7, paragraph 74, and for different predicted time periods of coverage for route(s); page 6, paragraph 70). In relation to the route, Ling further clarifies that routes can be determined/based on various factors relating to where the instances are located for providing coverage, i.e. time within range for coverage as previously shown, as well as resource availability of the instances, i.e. speed/bandwidth as previously shown (see Ling; page 6, paragraph 69). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found Ling’s cited recitations to cover said claimed limitations, and the prior art combination of Ling and Cheng, when taken together as a whole, does disclose these limitations relating to determining a route.
Any of Applicant’s additional remarks, not specifically addressed above, are considered moot in view of the Examiner’s above responses and/or the grounds/citations provided in the office action below.
Applicant is suggested to provide more detail as to what they believe constitutes the true invention of the application. This could help distinguish over the prior art of record, alleviate misinterpretation issues, and serve to move prosecution forward on the application in a more expedited manner.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted to Applicant that Allowable subject matter has been indicated in related Applications 14/668,254 and 18/472,493. Applicant is suggested to try and incorporate similar Allowable content into the current Application’s claims to try and move prosecution forward to an Allowance. Applicant is also cautioned not to repeat allowable subject matter in a manner that could lead to a double patenting rejection. This is just a note and suggestion by the Examiner, any amendments made by Applicant will be searched thoroughly before a final indication on Allowability is made.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,805,467 (herein the Patent) in view of Ling, US 2014/0057555. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application’s claims are only variations of the claims of the Patent and/or worded slightly broader in certain respects, while still having the same inventive outcome/concept.
Additionally, although the Patent discloses the majority of the currently claimed limitations, the Patent does not explicitly disclose one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions;
a system comprising a first computing device, and a first content access point;
the first content access point to receive, from the first computing device, a first portion of media content item and send, for reception by the mobile computing device, the first portion of the media content;
determining that the mobile vehicle traverses the route at a speed lower than a predicted speed; and
a geographic location of a mobile computing device is based on a geographical location of a third content access point, a direction of the mobile vehicle, an approximate speed of the mobile vehicle, and a route.
However, in a related art, Ling does disclose one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions (with at least non-transitory machine readable medium having executable code; page 7, paragraph 75);
a system (Fig. 1A) comprising a first computing device (with at least a server; page 6, paragraph 68, and page 4, paragraph 47, and Fig. 1A, element 130), and a first content access point (Fig. 1A, element 100, and Fig. 6A, elements 100, and page 5, paragraphs 55-56, and page 6, paragraph 66);
the first content access point to receive, from the first computing device, a first portion of media content item (server sends portion(s) of content for caching on the instance(s); page 6, paragraph 70) and send, for reception by the mobile computing device, the first portion of the media content (transmission to subscriber device(s) while in the coverage area(s); page 7, paragraph 73);
determining that the mobile vehicle traverses the route at a speed lower than a predicted speed (determination can be that a device will consume content at a location based on velocity/speed information, i.e. at instance 100i rather than 100i+1; page 7, paragraph 73, and adjustments of the caching/reservations for the instances can be made according to the determination of approximate velocity of device, i.e. such that the system will reallocate portions based on position being different from what was predicted, and as example, system can determine that a device will consume content at a location other than a predicted location based on velocity information, i.e. at instance 100i rather than 100i+1, and therefore instances 100i and 100i+1 can receive other data that they will need, i.e. portions originally for other instances; page 7, paragraph 73, and additionally, the system can also send overlapping portions of content to specific instances in certain situations; page 6, paragraph 70); and
a geographic location of a mobile computing device is based on a geographical location of a third content access point, a direction of the mobile vehicle, an approximate speed of the mobile vehicle, and a route (can determine approximate location/position based on communication with at least one instance along the route, i.e. an instance at a particular location which can include at least a third as a plurality are present, and with use of velocity as well and the route of travel, i.e. direction of travel based on the route; page 7, paragraphs 73-74, and Fig. 6A, elements 100, and with traveling along, i.e. direction, the route; page 6, paragraph 66, and Fig. 6A, see heavy dashed line).
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 Patent and Ling to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing specific components to be utilized to realize the operations already being performed in the Patent, in order to provide improved systems and methods for caching content for efficient mobile distribution (Ling; page 1, paragraphs 10-11).
Claims 1-26 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,944 (herein the Patent) in view of Ling, US 2014/0057555. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application’s claims are only variations of the claims of the Patent and/or worded slightly broader in certain respects, while still having the same inventive outcome/concept.
Additionally, although the Patent discloses the majority of the currently claimed limitations, the Patent does not explicitly disclose determining that the mobile vehicle traverses the route at a speed lower than a predicted speed; and
a geographic location of a mobile computing device is based on a geographical location of a third content access point, a direction of the mobile vehicle, an approximate speed of the mobile vehicle, and a route.
However, in a related art, Ling does disclose determining that the mobile vehicle traverses the route at a speed lower than a predicted speed (determination can be that a device will consume content at a location based on velocity/speed information, i.e. at instance 100i rather than 100i+1; page 7, paragraph 73, and adjustments of the caching/reservations for the instances can be made according to the determination of approximate velocity of device, i.e. such that the system will reallocate portions based on position being different from what was predicted, and as example, system can determine that a device will consume content at a location other than a predicted location based on velocity information, i.e. at instance 100i rather than 100i+1, and therefore instances 100i and 100i+1 can receive other data that they will need, i.e. portions originally for other instances; page 7, paragraph 73, and additionally, the system can also send overlapping portions of content to specific instances in certain situations; page 6, paragraph 70); and
a geographic location of a mobile computing device is based on a geographical location of a third content access point, a direction of the mobile vehicle, an approximate speed of the mobile vehicle, and a route (can determine approximate location/position based on communication with at least one instance along the route, i.e. an instance at a particular location which can include at least a third as a plurality are present, and with use of velocity as well and the route of travel, i.e. direction of travel based on the route; page 7, paragraphs 73-74, and Fig. 6A, elements 100, and with traveling along, i.e. direction, the route; page 6, paragraph 66, and Fig. 6A, see heavy dashed line).
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 Patent and Ling to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing specific components to be utilized to realize the operations already being performed in the Patent, in order to provide improved systems and methods for caching content for efficient mobile distribution (Ling; page 1, paragraphs 10-11).
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling, US 2014/0057555 in view of Cheng et al., US 2014/0171106.
Regarding claim 1, Ling discloses a method comprising:
sending, by a first computing device, based on determining a route for a mobile computing device associated with a mobile vehicle, and to a first content access point of the route (determining route to be traveled; page 6, paragraphs 68-69, and with respective network access instances along a route; page 6, paragraphs 70-71, and for a mobile device in a moving vehicle that travels a particular route; page 6, paragraph 65, and for playback of content; page 5, paragraph 60, and page 6, paragraph 65), a first portion of a media content item (sending portions, i.e. including at least a first portion, to a respective network access instance along the route for consumption from that network access instance; page 6, paragraphs 70-71), wherein the route comprises a plurality of content access points of a content service provider associated with playback of the media content item on the mobile computing device (respective network access instances, i.e. including at least a first, along the route; page 6, paragraphs 70- 71, and again for a mobile device in a moving vehicle that travels a particular route; page 6, paragraph 65, and for playback of content; page 5, paragraph 60, and page 6, paragraph 65);
determining a geographic location of the mobile computing device based on: the route, and a geographic location of the first content access point (can determine approximate location/position based on communication with at least one geographically located instance communicated with along the route; page 7, paragraphs 73-74, and system can determine that a device will be handed off from one system instance to another system instance, i.e. a location based on the instance(s), wherein the system instances have particular locations, i.e. can determine a location/area of a device in relation to the route and the instance locations where coverage will be provided; page 7, paragraph 74, and page 6, paragraph 69, and related to specific/determined location(s) that the user/device are traveling in relation to a route and system instances; page 6, paragraph 66, and Fig. 6, elements 602X, 606, 608, see heavy dashed line, and 100X); and
after a determination, sending a second portion of the media content item, initially assigned to a second content access point of the route, to a third content access point of the route (determination can be that a device will consume content at a location other than a predicted location, i.e. at instance 100i rather than 100i+1; page 7, paragraph 73, and adjustments of the caching/reservations for the instances can be made according to the determination of approximate position of device, i.e. such that the system will reallocate portions based on position being different from what was predicted, and as example, system can determine that a device will consume content at a location other than a predicted location, i.e. at instance 100i rather than 100i+1, and therefore instances 100i and 100i+1 can receive other data that they will need, i.e. portions originally for other instances; page 7, paragraph 73, and additionally, the system can also send overlapping portions of content to specific instances in certain situations, i.e. content originally for a first/second instance can also be sent to a further/third instance; page 6, paragraph 70).
Ling does not explicitly disclose after determining a difference between a geographic location of a mobile computing device and a predicted geographic location of the mobile computing device satisfies a predetermined threshold value.
In a related art, Cheng does disclose after determining a difference between a geographic location of a mobile computing device and a predicted geographic location of the mobile computing device satisfies a predetermined threshold value (if determination that difference between estimated location and actual location is greater than, i.e. satisfies, a threshold value, certain operations are then performed; page 2, paragraph 23, and page 5, paragraph 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 Ling and Cheng by allowing a threshold measurement to be utilized in order to determine when certain operations need to be performed relating to a location of a mobile device, in order to provide a method for mobility prediction in a wireless network which includes negotiating with a mobile device to determine a mobility prediction policy to be implemented on both the mobile device and a mobility prediction server, and which therefore reduces the amount of location reports and frees up network resources (Cheng; page 1, paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 2, Ling in view of Cheng discloses determining the route is based on: a predicted duration of time the mobile computing device will be within range of each of the plurality of content access points, and a predicted transmission speed for each of the plurality of content access points (Ling; bandwidth necessary, i.e. relating to speed, for delivering the content for a respective/predicted time period in coverage area(s) for a particular route(s); page 6, paragraph 72, and page 7, paragraph 74, and for different predicted time periods of coverage for route(s); page 6, paragraph 70, and routes can be determined/based on various factors relating to where the instances are located for providing coverage, i.e. time within range for coverage as previously shown, as well as resource availability of the instances, i.e. speed/bandwidth as previously shown; page 6, paragraph 69).
Regarding claim 3, Ling in view of Cheng discloses the first portion of the media content item and the second portion of the media content item are based on a quantity of the plurality of content access points and a plurality of predicted locations of the mobile computing device along the route at respective predicted times (Ling; dividing the content into specific portions; page 6, paragraphs 70-71, and wherein can divide the content evenly based on number/quantity of instances, amount of time in each coverage area, and the specific route, i.e. predicted locations along route; page 6, paragraph 71, and wherein in this scenario there are 6 instances along a particular route of predicted locations with device being in coverage of instances for a period of time, therefore, portions are divided accordingly).
Regarding claim 4, Ling in view of Cheng discloses assigning the first portion and the second portion in chronological order, to a respective content access point, of the plurality of content access points, based on an order in which the plurality of content access points will be traversed by the mobile computing device as the mobile computing device moves along the route (Ling; portions are assigned chronologically to access instances based on order they will be accessed/consumed from the instances along the route, i.e. first portions with a first instance of a route, a second portion with a second instance of a route, etc.; page 6, paragraph 71).
Regarding claim 6, Ling in view of Cheng discloses the sending the second portion of the media content item is based on determining that the mobile vehicle traverses the route at a speed lower than a predicted speed (Ling; determination can be that a device will consume content at a location based on velocity/speed information, i.e. at instance 100i rather than 100i+1; page 7, paragraph 73, and adjustments of the caching/reservations for the instances can be made according to the determination of approximate velocity of device, i.e. such that the system will reallocate portions based on position being different from what was predicted, and as example, system can determine that a device will consume content at a location other than a predicted location based on velocity information, i.e. at instance 100i rather than 100i+1, and therefore instances 100i and 100i+1 can receive other data that they will need, i.e. portions originally for other instances; page 7, paragraph 73, and additionally, the system can also send overlapping portions of content to specific instances in certain situations; page 6, paragraph 70, and Cheng; operations based on determination of change in speed, i.e. change in previous/predicted speed relating to threshold, such as change being greater than a threshold amount slower than a previous/predicted speed; page 2, paragraph 20).
Regarding claim 7, Ling in view of Cheng discloses the predicted geographic location of the mobile computing device is based on: a geographical location of the third content access point, a direction of the mobile vehicle, an approximate speed of the mobile vehicle, and the route (Ling; can determine approximate location/position based on communication with at least one instance along the route, i.e. an instance at a particular location which can include at least a third as a plurality are present, and with use of velocity as well and the route of travel, i.e. direction of travel based on the route; page 7, paragraphs 73-74, and Fig. 6A, elements 100, and with traveling along, i.e. direction, the route; page 6, paragraph 66, and Fig. 6A, see heavy dashed line, and Cheng; determination with direction of travel and at least speed of travel; page 2, paragraph 20).
Claim 8, which discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, 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:
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed (Ling; including at least non-transitory computer readable medium having machine readable/executable code stored thereon; page 7, paragraph 75).
Claim 9, which discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 10, which discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 11, which discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 13, which discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Claim 14, which discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 7.
Claim 15, 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 system (Ling; Fig. 1A) comprising a first computing device (Ling; with at least a server; page 6, paragraph 68, and page 4, paragraph 47, and Fig. 1A, element 130), and a first content access point (Ling; Fig. 1A, element 100, and Fig. 6A, elements 100, and page 5, paragraphs 55-56, and page 6, paragraph 66); and
the first content access point to receive, from the first computing device, a first portion of media content item (Ling; server sends portion(s) of content for caching on the instance(s); page 6, paragraph 70) and send, for reception by the mobile computing device, the first portion of the media content (Ling; transmission to subscriber device(s) while in the coverage area(s); page 7, paragraph 73).
Claim 16, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 17, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 18, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 20, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling, US 2014/0057555 in view of Cheng et al., US 2014/0171106 and further in view of Phillips, US 2016/0065995 and Lau et al., US 2015/0142914.
Regarding claim 5, Ling in view of Cheng discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the first portion of the media content item (Ling; dividing the content into specific portions; page 6, paragraphs 70-71), determining based on a quantity of the plurality of content access points of the route (Ling; determining based on where access instances are located along route to provide best coverage, i.e. based on a number/quantity along a respective route; page 6, paragraph 69), and the first content access point (Ling; respective network access instances, i.e. including at least a first, along the route; page 6, paragraphs 70-71).
Ling in view of Cheng does not explicitly disclose a size of a portion is determined based on a quantity of a plurality of content access points, and available memory at a content access point.
In a related art, Phillips does disclose a size of a portion is determined based on a quantity of a plurality of content access points of a route (based on location information, i.e. route, determining a gap in coverage between base stations, i.e. limited quantity/number of base stations, and then determining optimal segment sizes based on this information; pages 8-9, paragraphs 54-55); and
size determined based on available memory (sizes can also be dependent on available buffer sizes; page 6, paragraph 45).
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 Ling, Cheng, and Phillips by allowing optimal segment sizes to be determined based on various data related to the system, in order to provide an improved system and method which gives the ability to adapt to potential outage areas that may be encountered in a streaming environment (Phillips; page 1, paragraph 7).
Ling in view of Cheng and Phillips does not explicitly disclose a portion size is determined based on: available memory at a content access point.
In a related art, Lau does disclose a portion size is determined based on: available memory at a content access point (size of at least a data portion determined based on size of cache, i.e. available memory, of a planned base station; page 11, paragraphs 115-116); and
size determined based on network performance (a caching policy, i.e. related to data sizes, can also be based on network information, i.e. performance and conditions; page 10, paragraphs 100-101).
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 Ling, Cheng, Phillips, and Lau by allowing optimal segment sizes to be determined based on various data related to the system, in order to provide an improved system and method which utilizes cooperative caching for networks and cooperative data transmissions to end users, thereby increasing efficiency, increasing bandwidth, decreasing delay times, decreasing backhaul consumption, and reducing costs (Lau; page 4, paragraph 42).
Claim 12, which discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 19, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
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 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