DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 05/08/2026.
In the filed response, claims 22, 29, and 35-38 have been amended, where claims 22, 29, 35, 36, 37, and 38 are independent claims. Further, claims 39 and 40 are newly added.
Accordingly, Claims 22-40 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 11-13, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the clarifying amendments, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the work of Baek et al. US 2012/0151124 A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Baek. Baek teaches various arrangements of storage devices that can enable first and second data received from a host to be stored in non-volatile memory via temporary storage (e.g. ¶0065). For the reasons that are further elaborated on in the office action below, the examiner respectfully submits that Baek in combination with Jovileau reasonably teach and/or suggest the disclosed features of the amended claims given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Please see examiner’s responses below.
2. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks regarding Jovileau since the data stored in Cache 130 are distributed to a client versus being distributed to a further storage, i.e. “before the first data and the second data are written in a storage” as required in the clarified limitation. In light of this, the work of Baek is relied on. Although a server is not explicitly disclosed, as claimed, the examiner respectfully submits Baek’s data storage device(s) (e.g. fig. 13) can be arranged as part of a RAID system (fig. 18), which may be construed as a storage server(s). For e.g., ¶0053 of Yi et al. EP 3128429 A1 (PTO 892) describe a storage system 10 comprising storage servers forming a RAID. According to Baek, first and second data from a host can therefore be moved to flash memory 60 (non-volatile memory) via buffer memory 45 (temporary memory). For this reason, Baek’s teachings are deemed relevant. The examiner therefore respectfully submits that Jovileau and Baek reasonably teach and/or suggest, either alone or in combination, the disclosed features of the instant claims, given their BRI. The examiner also introduces the work of Kasera et al. US 8,924,347 B1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Kasera, to address the features of claim 24. Please see office action below for details.
3. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response and amendments regarding the rejection of Claims 29-34 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), however, after careful consideration, the examiner respectfully submits claim 29 remains ambiguous for the reasons that are further discussed below. As such, the rejection is maintained. Claims 37 and 38 are also rejected for the same reasons as claim 29.
4. Examiner also acknowledges Applicant’s response and amendments regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejections. As such, the double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
5. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
6. Accordingly, Claims 22-40 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29-34, 37, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 29, Claim 29 recites the amended limitation “and distribute, when the temporary storage does not currently store the first data, the first data stored into a storage to the reception device” (emphasis added). If the temporary storage does not currently store the first data as claimed, then it is not completely clear how said first data can be distributed from said temporary storage. In other words, data not currently stored in storage is understood to mean the data is physically not present in the storage. Further, it is not entirely clear if the first data that is not currently stored in the temporary storage (e.g. element 221 of fig. 3) is being distributed to storage within the server itself (e.g. element 222 of fig. 3) or to storage within the client (e.g. element 321 in fig. 3). In light of the foregoing, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be explicitly ascertained.
Regarding Claims 37-38, these claims recite similar limitations as Claim 29 above. For the same reasons presented, Claims 37-38 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding Claims 30-34, these depend on Claim 29 above and therefore include all of its features. For the same reasons presented, Claims 30-34 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding Claim 40, this depends on Claim 29 above and therefore include all of its features. For the same reasons presented, Claim 40 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 22-23, 35-36, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joliveau et al. US 10,277,669 B1, in view of Baek et al. US 2012/0151124 A1, hereinafter referred to as Joliveau and Baek, respectively.
Regarding claim 22, (New) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Joliveau teaches and/or suggests “A server device comprising: one or more processors [See for e.g. col. 6 lines 33-67 and col. 7 lines 1-7 regarding edge server 125 (figs. 1-2) in content delivery network (CDN) 110), where said edge server is a media server (col. 10 lines 38-40] configured to: receive first data as part of a plurality of pieces of transmission data, from a transmission device [Caching logic of edge server 125 may pre-cache fragments of media content (e.g. 1st data) in anticipation that those fragments will be later requested (e.g. col. 8 lines 29-35)]; and receive, in accordance with a request for transmission of second data that is data other than the first data among the plurality of pieces of transmission data, the second data transmitted from the transmission device [See for e.g. col. 3 lines 37-45. If edge server 125 does not have a client’s ‘requested’ fragment (e.g. 2nd data) in its CDN cache (130), a copy is retrieved from origin server 126 (col. 2 lines 37-41). Communications between servers in the CDN (col. 6 lines 33-63) suggest origin server 126 and edge server 125 can behave as transmission and reception devices, respectively]; and a temporary storage configured to temporarily store therein the first data and the second data that are received” [The foregoing fragments (those that are pre-cached and those that are retrieved) are stored in cache 130 (i.e. temporary storage) of said edge server 126. See col. 7 lines 1-7.]
However in Joliveau, the data stored in Cache 130 are distributed to a client versus being distributed to a further storage, i.e. “before the first data and the second data are written in a storage” as required in the clarified limitation. In light of the foregoing, Joliveau also does not address “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: read the first data and the second data stored in the temporary storage; and write, into a storage, the first data and the second data that are read from the temporary storage.” As such, the work of Baek from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest the following features given their BRI, i.e. “and a temporary storage configured to temporarily store therein the first data and the second data that are received [See for e.g. ¶0065, where first and second data received from a host is stored in buffer memory 45, here construed to be a temporary storage for holding data before being sent to permanent storage. Please refer to examiner’s response #2 regarding Baek’s RAID system (fig. 18), which is construed as a storage server] before the first data and the second data are written in a storage [Same as above, where ¶0065 further illustrates said data, when first stored in buffer memory 45, can then be written to flash memory 60 (non-volatile memory), i.e. before said data is written in a storage as required] wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: read the first data and the second data stored in the temporary storage [See ¶0065 above]; and write, into the storage, the first data and the second data that are read from the temporary storage.” [See ¶0065 above where said first and second data may then be written to flash memory 60 from buffer memory 45] Unlike Jovileau, Baek does not explicitly refer to a server device, however, Baek does show that an electronic device(s) for storing received data can be part of a memory system(s) 700 managed by a RAID controller 810 (fig. 18), which in turn can be construed as a storage server. Since Baek allows for transferring first and second data received from a host between storage in said electronic device(s), Baek’s teachings are deemed relevant. Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content distribution system of Joliveau (e.g. abstract), to add the teachings of Baek as above to facilitate the transfer of first and second data from a host to more permanent memory via temporary storage; hence by Baek’s teachings, the write performance of said permanent memory can be improved while a garbage collection process is implemented (e.g. ¶0076).
Regarding claim 23 (Previously Presented) Joliveau and Baek teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 22 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Joliveau does not clearly describe a “storage” apart from Cache 130 , the work of Baek from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “further comprising the storage.” [See ¶0065 regarding flash memory 60 which together with buffer memory 45 are integral to electronic device 10 which in turn can be a part of data storage device 800 (fig. 18).] The motivation for combining Joliveau and Baek has been discussed in connection with claim 22, above.
Regarding claim 35, claim 36 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 22.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 22. As to the claimed hardware/software, see col. 6 lines 19-67 of Joliveau.
Regarding claim 39 (New) Joliveau and Baek teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 22 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Joliveau does not appear to address the features of claim 39, the work of Baek from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the one or more processors delete, from the temporary storage, the first data and the second data that are written into the storage.” [See ¶0071 regarding updating buffer memory 45 where the entry for the first data is removed] The motivation for combining Joliveau and Baek has been discussed in connection with claim 22, above.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joliveau, in view of Baek and in further view of Kasera et al. US 8,924,347 B1, hereinafter referred to as Kasera.
Regarding claim 24, (Previously Presented) Joliveau and Baek teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 22 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Joliveau and Baek do not appear to further teach and/or suggest the features of claim 24. Kasera on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the storage is included in another server device.” [In fig. 1, data storage 116/126 provides permanent storage for data received from local cache within the respective replication server] Given Kasera’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content distribution system of Joliveau (e.g. abstract) and the data storage devices of Baek (e.g. fig. 18), to add the teachings of Kasera as above for providing a plurality of geographically distributed replication servers that help improve the durability of stored data (e.g. col. 14 lines 33-46).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joliveau, in view of Baek, and in further view of Van Brandenburg et al. US 2020/0204841 A1, hereinafter referred to as Van Brandenburg.
Regarding claim 25, Joliveau and Baek further teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 22 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Joliveau teaches different fragments of video data (e.g. fig. 1) and Baek teaches first and second data, they do not appear to address the features of claim 25. Van Brandenburg on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brough in to further teach and/or suggest “wherein the transmission data is moving image data [Van Brandenburg describes streaming frames of spatial elements of a video to a client device (e.g. abstract)], and the first data includes image data encoded by intra-frame prediction.” [The abstract further shows a first high resolution spatial-element frame is not inter-coded (i.e. is an intra coded I-frame). Please see for e.g. figs. 8-9] Given Van Brandenburg’s teachings for streaming frames of spatial elements to a client device, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content distribution system of Joliveau (e.g. abstract) and the data storage devices of Baek (e.g. fig. 18), to add the teachings of Van Brandenburg as above to facilitate receiving high-resolution spatial element frames at a client device fast enough to achieve a low motion-to-high-res latency (e.g. ¶0018).
Regarding claim 26, Joliveau, Baek, and Van Brandenburg teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 25 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Joliveau and Baek do not appear to address the features of claim 26. Van Brandenburg on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brough in to further teach and/or suggest “wherein the second data includes image data encoded by inter-frame prediction based on the first data.” [See for e.g. ¶0101 with respect to two or more temporal segments of spatial-element frames comprising inter-coded spatial-element frames (e.g. P and B frames)] The motivation for combining Joliveau, Baek, and Van Brandenburg has been discussed in connection with claim 25, above.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joliveau, in view of Baek, and in further view of Katagiri et al. US 2018/0275921 A1, hereinafter referred to as Katagiri.
Regarding claim 27, Joliveau and Baek teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 22 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Joliveau and Baek do not appear to address the features of claim 27. Katagiri on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brough in to further teach and/or suggest “wherein the one or more processors store, in the storage, merge data obtained by merging at least part of the first data and the second data stored in the temporary storage.” [See for e.g. ¶0129, where data can be merged in a buffer and then stored in NAND memory] Given the BRI of the claim and recognizing Katagiri’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content distribution system of Joliveau (e.g. abstract) and the data storage devices of Baek (e.g. fig. 18), to add the teachings of Katagiri as above to help overcome performance degradation issues in a storage device due to the increase in read-time of data in memory cells and the increase in program time of data into memory cells (e.g. ¶0003).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joliveau, in view of Baek, and in further view of Abe et al. US 2016/0261873 A1, hereinafter referred to as Abe.
Regarding claim 28, (New) Joliveau and Baek teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 22 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Joliveau and Baek do not appear to address the features of claim 28. Abe on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brough in to further teach and/or suggest “wherein the one or more processors delete at least one of the first data and the second data stored in the storage, in accordance with a predetermined condition.” [See for e.g. ¶0049-¶0050. A STRP (construed as 1st or 2nd data) can be deleted ‘after a predetermined period of time passes’] Given the BRI and considering Abe’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content distribution system of Joliveau (e.g. abstract) and the data storage devices of Baek (e.g. fig. 18), to add the teachings of Abe as above to provide a means for more efficiently coding moving images (e.g. ¶0008-¶0009).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights