DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Amendment filed on 05/19/2026. Claim 9 is amended. Claim 8 is canceled. Claims 1-7 and 9 remain pending in the application.
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 (pg. 4-7), filed on 05/19/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “emitting to the client of a specific page linked to the at least one audio-video content, in response to the request” and “determining a traffic peak associated with at least one audio-video content” as Applicant’s claim 1 recites. However, Burckart et al. (US 2014/0281906 A1) and Kotecha et al. (US 2015/0023168 A1) discloses rendering HTML pages with links referencing dynamic content in response to receiving a request (Burckart: [0035], [0044], [0048]) and determining traffic congestion associated with video content (Kotecha: [0038]-[0043]). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the prior art of record teaches the claim limitations in combination. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In particular, Applicant mentions audio-video content meeting particular conditions, but it is unclear what those particular conditions are and whether the claimed language actually recites such features. Examiner suggests Applicant to further clarify the claims in view of the argued features in order to obviate the obviousness rejection, perhaps with respect to how the result of determining a traffic peak associated with at least one audio-video content contributes to emitting a specific page linked to the at least one audio-video content since the two limitations currently appear to be two independent, unrelated functionalities.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burckart et al. (US 2014/0281906 A1, hereinafter “Burckart”) in view of Kotecha et al. (US 2015/0023168 A1, hereinafter “Kotecha”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 7 and 9), Burckart discloses:
receiving a request designating a page referencing a set of elements called dynamic elements, at least some of the dynamic elements corresponding to audio-video contents (receiving request for HTML webpage including dynamic data, Burckart: [0035], [0048]),
emitting to the client of a specific page linked to the at least one audio-video content, in response to the request (rendering HTML pages with links referencing dynamic content, Burckart: [0044]).
Burckart does not explicitly disclose:
determining a traffic peak associated with at least one audio-video content.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kotecha teaches:
determining a traffic peak associated with at least one audio-video content (determining traffic congestion associated with video, Kotecha: [0038]-[0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burckart in view of Kotecha in order to further modify the method of rendering requested webpage with links referencing dynamic content from the teachings of Burckart with the method of determining traffic congestion associated with dynamic content from the teachings of Kotecha.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have reduced network congestion (Burckart: [0013]).
Regarding claim 2, Burckart-Kotecha teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Burckart-Kotecha further discloses:
wherein the specific page is adapted to reference the at least one audio-video content, and, possibly, the requested page (rendering HTML pages with links referencing dynamic content, Burckart: [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Burckart-Kotecha teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Burckart-Kotecha further discloses:
wherein the specific page is a static page including no dynamic element (rendering static HTML pages, Burckart: [0044]).
Regarding claim 4, Burckart-Kotecha teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Burckart-Kotecha further discloses:
wherein the determining comprises a monitoring of the traffic associated with a set of audio-video contents, and a detection of a traffic peak among the traffics (monitoring traffic flows to determine traffic congestion, Kotecha: [0038]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 5, Burckart-Kotecha teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Burckart-Kotecha further discloses:
wherein the detection is based on a comparison of the traffics with a determined threshold (determining traffic congestion based on threshold, Kotecha: [0035]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Burckart-Kotecha teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Burckart-Kotecha further discloses:
wherein processing operations corresponding to the determining of a traffic peak are triggered prior to the receiving of the request (monitoring traffic flows to determine traffic congestion, Kotecha: [0038]-[0043]).
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm 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, Glenton B. Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights