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 .
Claims 1-36 have been examined.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks, filed on 8/7/26 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13, 22 and 31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and overcoming the double patenting rejection.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 obviousness-type 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); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
"Claim 12 and Claim 13 are generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim) 4. This court's predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic application. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982). Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer, claims 12 and 13 were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting." (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Instant Application
1.A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a plurality of data packets associated with object data, wherein each of the plurality of data packets comprises a respective portion of the object data, and wherein the object data is configured to be reassembled by the computing device based on one or more attribute packets;
receiving, by the computing device, the one or more attribute packets, wherein the one or more attribute packets comprise:
information for validating integrity of the object data after reassembly; and
an identifier configured to identify the object data after reassembly; and
reassembling, based on the plurality of data packets and the one or more attribute packets, the object data.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a request for the object data; retrieving, from a cache and based on the identifier of the object data, the object data; and outputting, based on the request for the object data, the object data.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more attribute packets comprise a checksum for validating the reassembled object data, and wherein the one or more attribute packets further comprise one or more of: caching information usable by the computing device for storing the reassembled object data, a service identifier, an indication of a destination port for the plurality of data packets, or an indication of a size of the object data.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the plurality of data packets is performed via a first destination port; wherein the receiving the one or more attribute packets is performed via a second destination port different from the first destination port; and wherein the one or more attribute packets comprise an indication of the first destination port.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the object data comprises content data, service data, Internet data, web data, software update data, or advertisement data.
Patent 12,177,279
1.A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and responsive to a request for content, a plurality of data packets associated with object data, wherein each of the plurality of data packets comprises a respective portion of the object data, and wherein the object data is configured to be reassembled by the computing device based on one or more attribute packets;
receiving, by the computing device and responsive to the request for content, the one or more attribute packets, wherein the one or more attribute packets comprises: information for reassembling the object data and information for validating the reassembled object data; and
an identifier, of the object data, configured to identify the reassembled object data after storage by the computing device;
reassembling, based on the plurality of data packets and the one or more attribute packets, the object data; and storing, in a cache and based on the identifier of the object data and based on the validation of the reassembled object data, the reassembled object data.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a request for the object data; retrieving, from the cache and based on the identifier of the object data, the object data; and outputting, based on the request for the object data, the object data.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more attribute packets comprises a checksum for validating the reassembled object data, and wherein the one or more attribute packets further comprises one or more of: caching information usable by the computing device for storing the reassembled object data; a service identifier, an indication of a destination port for the plurality of data packets, or an indication of a size of the object data.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the plurality of data packets is performed via a first destination port; wherein the receiving the one or more attribute packets is performed via a second destination port different from the first destination port; and wherein the one or more attribute packets comprises an indication of the first destination port.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the object data comprises content data, service data, Internet data, web data, software update data, or advertisement data.
Claims 1-5 are non provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of Patent 12177279 in view of Coburn et al, US 2011/0145584. Claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent 12177279 do not claim validating integrity of the object data. Coburn teaches receiving, by the computing device, the one or more attribute packets, wherein the one or more attribute packets comprise: information for validating integrity of the object data after reassembly [23]-[26][84]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include Coburn’s teaching because by doing so it would allow the receiving device to ensure that the received data has not been corrupted or altered.
Except for the identified element above, claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent 12177279 contains every elements of claims 1-5 in the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier claims and as such are unpatentable over non provisional obvious-type double patenting.
Instant Application
1.A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a plurality of data packets associated with object data, wherein each of the plurality of data packets comprises a respective portion of the object data, and wherein the object data is configured to be reassembled by the computing device based on one or more attribute packets;
receiving, by the computing device, the one or more attribute packets, wherein the one or more attribute packets comprise:
information for validating receiving, by the computing device, the one or more attribute packets, wherein the one or more attribute packets comprise:
information for validating integrity of the object data after reassembly the object data after reassembly; and
an identifier configured to identify the object data after reassembly; and
reassembling, based on the plurality of data packets and the one or more attribute packets, the object data.
Patent 11303685
9. A method comprising:
receiving, by a receiving device, a plurality of data packets associated with object data, wherein each of the plurality of data packets comprises a respective portion of the object data, and wherein the object data is configured to, after reassembly by the receiving device based on the plurality of data packets, be stored by the receiving device based on an identifier of the object data and retrieved by the receiving device using the identifier of the object data;
receiving, by the receiving device, one or more attribute packets, wherein each of the one or more attribute packets comprises
the identifier of the object data and information that enables, after the reassembly, the receiving device to validate and store the object data; reassembling, based on the plurality of data packets, the object data; and
storing, in a cache and based on the identifier of the object data, the object data.
Claim 1 is non provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of Patent 11303685 in view of Dunstan and Coburn. Claim 9 of Patent 11303685 does not specifically claim wherein the object data is configured to be reassembled by the computing device based on one or more attribute packets; the one or more attribute packets comprise: an identifier configured to identify the object data after reassembly; and reassembling, based on the plurality of data packets and the one or more attribute packets, the object data. Dunstan teaches wherein the object data is configured to be reassembled by the computing device based on one or more attribute packets (e.g., receiving, by Subscriber Controller and Cache 104, a series of packets associated with a content fragment [42][47][145][147]; each of the packets comprises a portion of the content fragment [42]; fragment is reassembled, based on the packets and the header packets, manifest, attributes and metadata [43][44][55]-[59][69]-[75]); the one or more attribute packets comprise: an identifier configured to identify the object data after reassembly (e.g., URL, fragment ID/number used to identify/validate the fragment [31][47]-[75]); and reassembling, based on the plurality of data packets and the one or more attribute packets, the object data (e.g., reassembling, based on the packets and the header packets, manifest, attributes and metadata, the content fragment ([43][69]-[75]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include Dunstan’s teaching because by doing so it would allow the content packets to be efficiently transmitted to the destination using their own data path without the need for a dedicated channel.
Claim 9 of Patent 11303685 does not claim validating integrity of the object data. Coburn teaches receiving, by the computing device, the one or more attribute packets, wherein the one or more attribute packets comprise: information for validating integrity of the object data after reassembly [23]-[26][84]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include Coburn’s teaching because by doing so it would allow the receiving device to ensure that the received data has not been corrupted or altered.
Except for the identified elements above, claim 9 of U.S. Patent 11303685 contains every elements of claim 1 in the instant application and thus anticipate the claim of the instant application.
Claim of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier claim and as such are unpatentable over non provisional obvious-type double patenting.
Instant Application
1.A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a plurality of data packets associated with object data, wherein each of the plurality of data packets comprises a respective portion of the object data, and wherein the object data is configured to be reassembled by the computing device based on one or more attribute packets;
receiving, by the computing device, the one or more attribute packets, wherein the one or more attribute packets comprise:
information for validating integrity of the object data after reassembly; and
an identifier configured to identify the object data after reassembly; and
reassembling, based on the plurality of data packets and the one or more attribute packets, the object data.
Patent 10681096
12. A method comprising:
receiving, by a receiving device associated with a multicast group, a first multicast transmission associated with the multicast group, wherein the first multicast transmission comprises, for a video fragment, a plurality of video data packets, wherein each of the plurality of video data packets is addressed to a plurality of receiving devices, wherein each of the plurality of video data packets comprises a respective portion of video data of the video fragment, and wherein the video fragment is configured to be stored by the receiving device based on an identifier of the video fragment and retrieved by the receiving device using the identifier of the video fragment at a time the receiving device is to output the video fragment;
receiving, by the receiving device, a second multicast transmission associated with the multicast group, wherein the second multicast transmission comprises, for the video fragment, one or more attribute packets, wherein each of the one or more attribute packets is addressed to the plurality of receiving devices, and wherein each of the one or more attribute packets comprises
the identifier of the video fragment and information that enables the receiving device to validate and store the video fragment after reassembling the video fragment based on the plurality of video data packets;
reassembling, based on the plurality of video data packets, the video fragment; and storing, in a cache and based on the identifier of the video fragment, the video fragment.
Claim 1 is non provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of Patent 10681096 in view of Dunstan and Coburn. Claim 12 of Patent 10681096 does not specifically claim object data; wherein the object data is configured to be reassembled by the computing device based on one or more attribute packets; the one or more attribute packets comprise: an identifier configured to identify the object data after reassembly; and reassembling, based on the plurality of data packets and the one or more attribute packets, the object data. Dunstan teaches wherein the object data is configured to be reassembled by the computing device based on one or more attribute packets (e.g., receiving, by Subscriber Controller and Cache 104, a series of packets associated with a content fragment [42][47][145][147]; each of the packets comprises a portion of the content fragment [42]; fragment is reassembled, based on the packets and the header packets, manifest, attributes and metadata [43][44][55]-[59][69]-[75]); the one or more attribute packets comprise: an identifier configured to identify the object data after reassembly (e.g., URL, fragment ID/number used to identify/validate the fragment [31][47]-[75]); and reassembling, based on the plurality of data packets and the one or more attribute packets, the object data (e.g., reassembling, based on the packets and the header packets, manifest, attributes and metadata, the content fragment ([43][69]-[75]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include Dunstan’s teaching because by doing so it would allow the content packets to be efficiently transmitted to the destination using their own data path without the need for a dedicated channel.
Claim 12 of Patent 10681096 does not claim validating integrity of the object data. Coburn teaches receiving, by the computing device, the one or more attribute packets, wherein the one or more attribute packets comprise: information for validating integrity of the object data after reassembly [23]-[26][84]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include Coburn’s teaching because by doing so it would allow the receiving device to ensure that the received data has not been corrupted or altered.
Except for the identified elements above, claim 12 of Patent 10681096 contains every elements of claim 1 in the instant application and thus anticipate the claim of the instant application.
Except for the identified elements above, claim 12 of U.S. Patent 10681096 contains every elements of claim 1 in the instant application and thus anticipate the claim of the instant application.
Claim of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier claim and as such are unpatentable over non provisional obvious-type double patenting.PE2E - Docket and Application Viewer 4.1.6.150
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.
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.
Claim 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-19, 21, 23-28, 30, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunstan et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0302320 (hereinafter Dunstan) in view of Coburn et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0145584 (hereinafter Coburn).
As per claim 1, Dunstan teaches the invention as claimed comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a plurality of data packets associated with object data, wherein each of the plurality of data packets comprises a respective portion of the object data, and wherein the object data is configured to be reassembled by the computing device based on one or more attribute packets (e.g., receiving, by Subscriber Controller and Cache 104, a series of packets associated with a content fragment [42][47][145][147]; each of the packets comprises a portion of the content fragment [42]; fragment is reassembled, based on the packets and the header packets, manifest, attributes and metadata [43][44][55]-[59][69]-[75]);
receiving, by the computing device, the one or more attribute packets ([48][55]-[59][145][147],e.g., header packets comprises information such as session ID (e.g., MD5 hash of the URL), packets type, number of packets for reassembling the fragment [69]-[75] and an identifier of the object data (e.g., receiving, by Subscriber Controller and Cache 104, header packets, manifest, attributes, metadata all of which support the attribute packets and attributes that are sent with the data packets (e.g., URL, fragment ID/number))), wherein the one or more attribute packets comprise:
an identifier configured to identify the object data after reassembly (e.g., URL, fragment ID/number used to identify/validate the fragment [31][47]-[75]); and
reassembling, based on the plurality of data packets and the one or more attribute packets, the object data (e.g., reassembling, based on the packets and the header packets, manifest, attributes and metadata, the content fragment ([43][69]-[75]).
Although Dunstan teaches receiving, by the computing device, the one or more attribute packets (([48][55]-[59][69]-[75][145][147], e.g., receiving, by Subscriber Controller and Cache 104, header packets, manifest, attributes, metadata all of which support the attribute packets and attributes that are sent with the data packets), however, Dunstan is silent in regards to wherein the one or more attribute packets comprise: information for validating integrity of the object data after reassembly. Coburn teaches receiving, by the computing device, the one or more attribute packets, wherein the one or more attribute packets comprise: information for validating integrity of the object data after reassembly ([23]-[26][84], e.g., receiving manifest with crypto hash for validating integrity of object data after reassembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate Coburn’s teaching with Dunstan’s system in order to allow the receiving device in Dunstan’s system to ensure that the received data has not been corrupted or altered.
As per claim 3, Dunstan and Coburn teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Dunstan and Coburn further teach wherein the one or more attribute packets comprise a checksum for validating the reassembled object data (see Coburn, e.g., crypto hash, [23][84]), and wherein the one or more attribute packets further comprise one or more of: caching information usable by the computing device for storing the reassembled object data, a service identifier, an indication of a destination port for the plurality of data packets, or an indication of a size of the object data (see Dunstan, [48]-[59], e.g., header packet comprises fragment ID(comprised in the session ID), hash/checksum, session ID, destination port, number of packets).
As per claim 5, Dunstan and Coburn teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Dunstan further teach wherein the object data comprises content data, service data, Internet data, web data, software update data, or advertisement data ([42][156]).
As per claim 6, Dunstan and Coburn teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Dunstan further teach wherein the plurality of data packets and the one or more attribute packets conform to discrete web object multicast protocol (DWOMP) ([41][42], e.g., individual web content fragment multicast protocol).
As per claim 7, Dunstan and Coburn teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Dunstan further teach wherein each of the plurality of data packets comprises a packet number, a payload size, and an indication of a number of bytes remaining for the object data ([47][59][60]-[69], e.g., data packets comprise packet number, size, fragment ID, number of packets in a fragment).
As per claim 8, Dunstan and Coburn teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Dunstan further teach wherein the identifier of the object data comprises an indication of where the object data is located in a content item (Dunstan [149][152], e.g., fragment ID/number indicates location in the content fragment).
As per claim 9, Dunstan and Coburn teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Dunstan further teach wherein the computing device comprises a web server or a web proxy (Dunstan [24][29][30])
As per claims 10, 19 and 28, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 above. (see Dunstan [20] for a computing device comprising: one or more processors, and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to perform the method of claim 1; see Dunstan [27][77][42][47]; fig. 1, for a second computing device, wherein the second computing device is configured to send the plurality of data packets.)
As per claims 12, 21 and 30, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 above.
As per claims 14, 23 and 32, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 above.
As per claims 15, 24 and 33, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6 above.
As per claims 16, 25 and 34, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7 above.
As per claims 17, 26 and 35, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8 above.
As per claims 18, 27 and 36, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9 above.
Claims 2, 11, 20, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunstan and Coburn in view of Kandekar et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0047119 (hereinafter Kandekar).
As per claim 2, Dunstan and Coburn teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Dunstan and Coburn are silent in regard to receiving a request for the object data; retrieving, from a cache and based on the identifier of the object data, the object data; and outputting, based on the request for the object data, the object data. Kandekar teaches comprising:
receiving a request for the object data ([30][43][69]);
retrieving, from the cache and based on the identifier of the object data, the object data ([30][37][53][55][69]); and
outputting, based on the request for the object data, the object data ([30][45][53][55][59][69]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Kandekar’s teaching with Dunstan’s and Coburn’s system in order to allow Dunstan’s and Coburn’s system to quickly retrieve content fragment by utilizing the identifier of the content fragment [51].
As per claims 11, 20 and 29, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair- direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights