DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-21 are presented for consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 11. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,757,964, and claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No 12,593,081. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patents anticipate all claims of the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, and 10 recite the limitation “the social media service server" in line 11, and line 14, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a request" in line 12, and “a social media feed” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6-8, 10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seedorf et al. [ US Patent Application No 2015/0373079 ].
As per claim 2, Seedorf discloses the invention as claimed including a method of reducing social media feed content delivery delay [ paragraph 0059 ], comprising:
receiving, from a user device by a digital service server, a request to pre-populate a social media feed with content objects [ i.e. UE requests to retrieve an adaptive stream ] [ paragraphs 0062, and 0089 ];
selecting, by the digital service server, a plurality of content objects with which to pre-populate the social media feed [ i.e. list of links to caches C1, C2, and C3 ] [ paragraph 0089, and 0090 ];
obtaining, by the digital service server, from at least one content delivery network (CDN) a plurality of manifests [ i.e. list of links directly to downstream CDN caches C1, C2, and C3 ] [ paragraph 0089 ], where each manifest in the plurality of manifests contains location information for requesting a content object from a given infrastructure component of the at least one CDN [ i.e. the URLs provided in the manifest files for each chunk may include DNS domain under the control of the downstream CDN ] [ paragraphs 0005, 0089, and 0092 ];
providing to the user device by the social media service server, in response to the request to pre-populate the social media feed with content objects, information comprising the plurality of manifests [ i.e. send the manifest file back to the user equipment UE ] [ paragraphs 0072 and 0091 ].
8. As per claim 3 Seedorf discloses wherein the content objects are video content [ i.e. movie stream ] [ paragraph 0089 ].
9. As per claim 6, Seedorf discloses selecting the at least one CDNs from a plurality of CDNs based on performance data collected from the plurality of CDNs [ i.e. performance of the content stream may be chosen when providing the content stream to the user equipment ] [ paragraph 0051 ].
10. As per claim 7, Seedorf discloses wherein the performance data comprises at least one of: availability, performance, load, or network performance [ i.e. based on load observed and network condition ] [ paragraph 0098 ].
As per claim 8, Seedorf discloses collecting the performance data by a performance analyzer in communication with the digital service server [ i.e. load observed and may inform the upstream CDN ] [ paragraphs 0050, 0060, and 0098 ].
12. As per claim 10, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 2, furthermore, Seedorf discloses monitoring, by a content delivery network (CDN) performance analyzer server communicatively coupled to the digital service server, performance data associated with at least a plurality of CDNs [ i.e. determining the network information internal state information of the downstream content delivery network, including load, congestion, and/or maximum bandwidth on links ] [ paragraphs 0055, 0056, and 0095 ]; and selecting, by the CDN performance analyzer server, the plurality of CDNs to be used for delivering content objects to the user device based upon the performance data [ i.e. a better content delivery entity in terms of performance of the content stream may be chosen when providing the content stream to the suer equipment ] [ paragraph 0051 ].
13. As per claim 11, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 7.
14. As per claim 12, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 3.
15. As per claim 15, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 7.
16. As per claim 17, Seedorf discloses the invention as claimed including a method of reducing social media feed content delivery delay, comprising:
requesting, by a user device configured by a social media application, population of a social media feed with a personalized stream of content objects [ i.e. UE requests to retrieve an adaptive stream ] [ S1, Figure 2; and paragraphs 0062, and 0089 ], where the request is transmitted prior to receiving a user request at the user device for content objects [ S2, S3, Figure 2; and paragraphs 0089, and 0090 ];
receiving, by a social media service server, the request to populate the social media feed [ paragraphs 0089, and 0090 ];
providing, by the social media service server to the user device, information comprising a plurality of manifests, where each manifest in the plurality of manifests enables the user device to request a content object from one or more content delivery network (CDN) to populate the social media feed [ i.e. MF1, MF2 ] [ S4, Figure 2; and paragraphs 0072, 0073, and 0089 ];
receiving, by the user device, a request from the user to display the personalized stream of content objects; requesting, by the user device, based upon the plurality of manifests, content objects from one or more CDNs; receiving, at the user device, from the one or more CDNs, the requested content objects; and displaying, using the user device. the requested content objects in a social media feed [ i.e. issue HTTP get request for chunk and receive the corresponding chunk from cache ] [ S6-S8, Figure 2; and paragraphs 0090, and 0091 ].
17. As per claim 18, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 3.
18. As per claim 21, Seedorf discloses requesting, from a plurality of CDNs, the plurality of manifests [ Figure2; and paragraphs 0072, and 0073 ]
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seedorf et al. [ US Patent Application No 2015/0373079 ], in view of Newton et al. [ US Patent Application No 2013/0159473 ].
20. As per claim 4, Seedorf does not specifically disclose wherein the information further comprises a session ID. Newton discloses wherein the information further comprises a session ID [ i.e. sessionid ] [ paragraphs 0110, 0342-0349 ]. It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Seedorf and Newton because the teaching of Newton would enable to distribute resources efficiently to client machines on behalf of one or more content providers [ Newton, paragraph 0062 ]
21. As per claim 5, Newton discloses wherein the information further comprises a device type for the user device [ i.e. customer configuration information ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs ].
22. As per claim 9, Newton discloses wherein the selection is further based on priorities in a distribution policy [ i.e. policies ] [ paragraphs 0092, 0248, and 0249 ].
As per claim 13, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 4.
24. As per claim 14, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 5.
25. As per claim 16, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 9.
26. As per claim 19, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 4.
27. As per claim 20, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Phillips et al. [ US Patent Application No 2015/0127845 ] discloses system and method for optimizing defragmentation of content in a content delivery network
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-2727952. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights