Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Action is responsive to the Applicant’s Amendment/Remarks filed on 12/29/2025. In the Amendment, applicant amended claim 9. As necessitated by the Amendment, Examiner hereby respectfully maintains 35 U.S.C § 101 rejections to claims 1-32.
As to Arguments and Remarks filed in the Amendment, please see Examiner’s responses shown after Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 103.
Please note claims 1-32 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The Terminal Disclaimer filed on 12/29/2025 has been acknowledged and has been approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Claim recites the language of “receiving, by a network device, based on a request to access an application, a request for a file of a plurality of files stored in persistent storage of the network device; sending, to a user device, based on the request for the file, the file to be stored in non- persistent storage of the user device; and causing the file stored in the persistent storage of the network device to be replaced with an altered file, wherein the altered file is generated based on one or more changes to existing data of the file stored in the non-persistent storage of the user device.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “receiving, by a network device, based on a request to access an application, a request for a file of a plurality of files stored in persistent storage of the network device”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “receive” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually receive an instruction. Similarly, the limitation of sending, to a user device, based on the request for the file, the file to be stored in non- persistent storage of the user device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “sending” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually sending/distributing information. Also similarly, the limitation of causing the file stored in the persistent storage of the network device to be replaced with an altered file, wherein the altered file is generated based on one or more changes to existing data of the file stored in the non-persistent storage of the user device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually saving information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Human Activity” and “Gathering information” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using one or more processors and memory to perform the receiving, sending, storing steps. The apparatus in those steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic system performing a generic computer function of receiving, sending, storing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and memory to receiving, sending, storing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 recites “request to access the application is based on one or more of: a request for a website or a request to run a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) application”. The claim language provides only further access request which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 3 recites “wherein the file is configured for use by the application”. The claim language provides only further a file which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 4 recites “the file is a cookie jar comprising a plurality of web cookies”. The claim language provides only further cook jar which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 5 recites “changes to existing data of the requested file is associated with a change in a state of the application”. The claim language provides only further updating/change information/file/data which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is dependent on independent claim 5 and includes all the limitations of claims 5 and 1. Claim 6 recites “change in the state of the application is associated with an execution of a function of the application”. The claim language provides only further change/update information which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 7 recites “receiving, from the user device, the altered file”. The claim language provides only further altered file which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is dependent on independent claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 8 recites “the persistent storage comprises cloud based storage”. The claim language provides only further cloud storage which is directed towards the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 9-16 are essentially the same as claims 1-8 except that they set forth the claimed invention as an apparatus rather than a method respectively and correspondingly, therefore are rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-8.
Regarding claims 17-24 are essentially the same as claims 1-8 except that they set forth the claimed invention as non-transitory computer-readable media rather than a method respectively and correspondingly, therefore are rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-8.
Regarding claims 25-32 are essentially the same as claims 1-8 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method respectively and correspondingly, therefore are rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-8.
Accordingly, the claims 1-32 are not patent eligible.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baskaran et al. (US PGPUB, 2013/0007813, hereinafter Baskaran), in view of Cardozo et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0246563, hereinafter Cardozo)..
As per as claim 1, Baskaran discloses:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a network device, based on a request to access an application, a request for a file of a plurality of files stored in persistent storage of the network device (Baskaran, e.g., [0016-0024], “…television programming or executed in real-time for supporting STB 103…execution of STB 103 functionality from one or more user devices, whether the devices are located inside the user premise 113 or outside. For example, the platform 101 may interact with a mobile device 108 belonging to the user/viewer that is configured to access the control signal data 111a and content data 111b as stored by way of a playback application 127. The playback application 127 may be a media player, television broadcast software or any other like utility having the appropriate application programming interfaces (APIs) for accessing the simulation platform 101, enabling the execution of content data 111b and invoking the various features of the STB 103. Per this execution, in response to a request for access to particular content or execution of an STB feature (e.g., activation of a game…) (the examiner asserts that the set top box (STB) is a persistent storage);
sending, to a user device, based on the request for the file, the file to be stored in non- persistent storage of the user device (Baskaran, e.g., [0016-0024], [0031], “…caching execution of platform 101 during connectivity, the STB 103 may access the following information from the head-end: Timing information, Channel Map Data, and Dynamic Data. In one embodiment, timing information includes data for indicating a last recorded time of accessing of the head-end control data signals. Hence, the control data signals are stored and time stamped accordingly during periods of scheduled caching (storing)…”) (the examiner asserts that caching file/game/TV show = storing the files in non-persistent storage); and
causing the file stored in the persistent storage of the network device to be replaced with an altered file, wherein the altered file is generated based on one or more changes to existing data of the file stored in the non-persistent storage of the user device (Baskaran, e.g., [0016-0029], “…One program may be scheduled to occur, for example, at 3 pm-4 pm, while another is set for the 4 pm-5 pm time slot…Dynamic Data include information that is asynchronously changed as further updates to the content data (e.g., metadata), channel map data…” and ““...Updates in data may occur at any time…encoding and transmitting content. ...the content data 111b is mapped to a specific channel via the channel map data, for playback on demand or upon accessing of a particular channel based on the specified time as live television content…the platform 101 may interact with a mobile device 108 belonging to the user/viewer that is configured to access the control signal data 111a and content data...”), (the examiner asserts that user can altering/updating/changing the program when time if update and caching file/game/TV show/channel on the TV which is non-persistent storage), further see [0031] and [0050], “…Alternatively, the user may be presented with the option of executing a different program (content data) or channels…”).
To make records clearer regarding to the language of “receiving a request/ processing the request to access an application” (although as stated above it teaches the functional of sending a request/processing the request to access the files).
However Cardozo, in an analogous art, discloses “receiving a request/ processing the request to access an application”, (Cardozo, e.g., [0016-0019], “…receives requests from clients 105 and responds to the requests with one or more webpages, such as HTML webpages… receive requests from clients 105 and may respond to the requests with one or more webpages, such as HML webpages. When processing requests, from clients 105, for webpages, each of web servers 122-1 through 122-3 may store and/or use state information. State information may be stored by a cloud cookie component 125. Similar to cloud cookie component 115, cloud cookie component 125 may include, for example, a database, a file server…). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Cardozo and Baskaran to identify and process user request based on user identification and user preference information to archiving in provide user correct files/TV shows and other files based on user request (Cardozo, e.g., [0001-0002]).
As per as claim 2, the combination of Cardozo and Baskaran disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the request to access the application is based on one or more of: a request for a website or a request to run a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) application (Baskaran, e.g., [0016-0024], “…television programming or executed in real-time for supporting STB 103…execution of STB 103 functionality from one or more user devices, whether the devices are located inside the user premise 113 or outside. For example, the platform 101 may interact with a mobile device 108 belonging to the user/viewer that is configured to access the control signal data 111a and content data 111b as stored by way of a playback application 127. The playback application 127 may be a media player, television broadcast software or any other like utility having the appropriate application programming interfaces (APIs) for accessing the simulation platform 101, enabling the execution of content data 111b and invoking the various features of the STB 103. Per this execution, in response to a request for access to particular content or execution of an STB feature (e.g., activation of a game…) and (Cardozo, e.g., [0014-0019], “…web server 110 and server cluster 120 may include web servers that provide documents, such as hypertext markup language (HTML) webpages, in response to requests from clients…”).
As per as claim 3, the combination of Cardozo and Baskaran disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the file is configured for use by the application (Baskaran, e.g., [0023], [0037-0038], [0042] and [0044], “application programming” and further see [0055], “media application”).
As per as claim 4, the combination of Cardozo and Baskaran disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the file comprises a cookie jar comprising a plurality of web cookies (Cardozo, e.g., [0012-0013 and [0018-0019], (web cookies)).
As per as claim 5, the combination of Cardozo and Baskaran disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more changes to existing data of the requested file is associated with a change in a state of the application (Baskaran, e.g., [0019-0024]).
As per as claim 6, the combination of Cardozo and Baskaran disclose:
The method of claim 5, wherein the change in the state of the application is associated with an execution of a function of the application (Baskaran, e.g., [0016-0024], and further see [0027-0029] disclose user profile data associating with signal data and content data) and further see (Cardozo, e.g., [abstract], (state information relating to web browsing by the client/user).
As per as claim 7, the combination of Cardozo and Baskaran disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from the user device, the altered file (Baskaran, e.g., [0016-0029], “…One program may be scheduled to occur, for example, at 3 pm-4 pm, while another is set for the 4 pm-5 pm time slot…Dynamic Data include information that is asynchronously changed as further updates to the content data (e.g., metadata), channel map data…” and ““...Updates in data may occur at any time…encoding and transmitting content...interact with a mobile device 108 belonging to the user/viewer that is configured to access the control signal data 111a and content data...”).
As per as claim 8, the combination of Cardozo and Baskaran disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the persistent storage comprises cloud-based storage (Baskaran, e.g., [0039], cloud based server) and (Cardozo, e.g., [0012-0013] and [0018-0019]).
Claims 9-16 are essentially the same as claims 1-8 except that they set forth the claimed invention as an apparatus rather a method, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-8.
Claims 17-24 are essentially the same as claims 1-8 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a non-transitory computer readable media rather a method, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-8.
Claims 25-32 are essentially the same as claims 1-8 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a system rather a method, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-8.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner respectfully reminds applicant of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (See MPEP 2111), "During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court further elaborated on the “broadest reasonable interpretation" standard and recognized that “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction." Thus, when interpreting claims, the courts have held that Examiners should (1) interpret claim terms as broadly as their terms reasonably allows and (2) interpret claim phrases as broadly as their construction reasonably allows.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 with respect to claims 1-32 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection for the following reasons:
Issue I: Regarding to claims 1-32 are rejected based on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S Patent No. 12,182,068.
Response I: The Terminal Disclaimer filed on 12/29/2025 has been acknowledged and has been approved.
Issue II: Applicant argued on pages 7-13 (Remarks/Argument) regarding to 101 rejection to claims 1-32.
Response II: The examiner respectfully submits, the claims 1, 9, 17 and 25 recites the steps of receiving, sending, and causing the file store, which is not integrated into a practical and there is no transformation/produce to the data/file/document. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Human Activity” and “Gathering information” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using one or more processors and memory to perform the receiving, sending, storing steps. The apparatus in those steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic system performing a generic computer function of receiving, sending, storing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and memory to receiving, sending, storing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims 1-32 are not patent eligible.
Issue III: Applicant argued on pages 14-16 (Remarks/Argument) that the combination of Baskaran and Cardozo fail to disclose “causing the file stored in the persistent storage of the network device to be replaced with an altered file”.
Response III: According to the paragraph [0039] of instant application disclose “a user can access an application from the HCT 120a, which in turn can cause a plurality of files to be accessed from the persistent storage 123 and stored in the non-persistent storage 202a...” (unless, applicant provide the detailing the language of causing, otherwise for broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner asserts the cause is equivalent to a response of an input/instruction/action from user (for example, user selected schedule to down a game show at 7:30PM which causing to store a file in a hard drive (persistent storage), and see [0046], “...requested plurality of files can be replaced in the persistent storage 123 by the updated plurality of files...” (update) and [0055], “... the plurality of files can be replaced in the persistent storage 123 with the updated version...”). After review and consideration, the combination of Baskaran and Cardozo efficient read on what being claimed, (Baskaran, e.g., [0016-0029], “…One program may be scheduled to occur, for example, at 3 pm-4 pm, while another is set for the 4 pm-5 pm time slot…Dynamic Data include information that is asynchronously changed as further updates to the content data (e.g., metadata), channel map data…” and ““...Updates in data may occur at any time…encoding and transmitting content. ...the content data 111b is mapped to a specific channel via the channel map data, for playback on demand or upon accessing of a particular channel based on the specified time as live television content…the platform 101 may interact with a mobile device 108 belonging to the user/viewer that is configured to access the control signal data 111a and content data...”), (the examiner asserts that user can altering/updating/changing the program when time if update and caching file/game/TV show/channel on the TV which is non-persistent storage), further see [0031] and [0050], “…Alternatively, the user may be presented with the option of executing a different program (content data) or channels…”) and for the language of causing, see [0067], “...Execution of the arrangement of instructions contained in main memory 805 causes the processor 803 to perform the process steps... processing arrangement may also be employed to execute the instructions contained in main memory...”). Further see (Cardozo, e.g., [0016-0019], “…receives requests from clients 105 and responds to the requests with one or more webpages, such as HTML webpages… receive requests from clients 105 and may respond to the requests with one or more webpages, such as HML webpages. When processing requests, from clients 105, for webpages, each of web servers 122-1 through 122-3 may store and/or use state information. State information may be stored by a cloud cookie component 125. Similar to cloud cookie component 115, cloud cookie component 125 may include, for example, a database, a file server…” and [0028], [0064], [claim 16], (cause to perform an instruction step)).
Issue IV: Applicant argued on page 17 (Remarks/Argument) that the motivation to combine the references is not properly supported.
Response IV: The examiner respectfully disagrees and submits Cardozo disclose stored cookies in a cloud computing environment, which is requesting from a client, for a webpage, may be received and it may be determined whether the request includes a browser cookie that represents a key value that references state information relating to web browsing by the client, and also store file in client local storage (persistent storage). Baskaran disclose simulating a connection to a head-end system to enable execution of content and features of a set-top box and store/download file in cache (non-persistent storage) and store in hard drive (persistent storage). Therefore, the motivation to combine these reference is valid.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-24 and 26-32 are dependent on the independent claims 1, 9, 17 and 25 are rejected for the same reason because of depend on the base claims.
For the above reasons the rejection is maintained.
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.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
If a reference indicated as being mailed on PTO-FORM 892 has not been enclosed in this action, please contact Lisa Craney whose telephone number is 571-272-3574 for faster service.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3173. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:45 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/TUAN A PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163