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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite creating a list of recommended content for a user, and downloading the recommended content within a certain time period. The limitation of “obtaining an identifier assigned to the terminal, obtaining a list of one or more contents curated through personalized recommendations for the user, and downloading at least some of the one or more contents in one or more time periods which are determined based on the identifier within a predefined pre-download period”, 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, other than reciting “downloading at least some of the one or more contents” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” 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 – downloading. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating a probability distribution based on a determined amount of use) 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 impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations “download policy manager” and “download agent” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Referring to paragraph [0077] in the Specification, Applicant states that the “download policy manager” and “download agent” are implemented as software.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramakrishnan (2015/0121413).
As for claim 1, Ramakrishnan discloses a method of operating a terminal for pre-downloading content ahead of a user's request, the method comprising:
obtaining an identifier assigned to the terminal (Collects information regarding mobile communication device; [0019], [0024]);
obtaining a list of one or more contents curated through personalized recommendations for the user (Recommendation server 130 provides a recommendation list to mobile communication device based on user’s media activity; [0022], [0026], [0028], [0059]); and
downloading at least some of the one or more contents in one or more time periods (non-peak hours and/or during hours of reduced traffic and/or download costs) which are determined based on the identifier within a predefined pre-download period (The mobile communication device pre-fetches media content during hours of reduced traffic and/or download costs; [0052]).
As for claim 3, Ramakrishnan discloses wherein the downloading is initiated without receiving a download request from the user (Content is pre-fetched according to recommendations; [0044], [0048], [0017]).
As for claim 9, Ramakrishnan discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions for causing, when executed by a computer, the computer to perform the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
As for claim 10, Ramakrishnan discloses a terminal, comprising:
a download policy manager configured to obtain an identifier assigned to the terminal and a list of one or more contents curated through personalized recommendations for a user of the terminal (Recommendation server 130 provides a recommendation list to mobile communication device based on user’s media activity; [0019], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0059]); and
a download agent configured to download at least some of the one or more contents in one or more time periods which are determined based on the identifier within a predefined pre- download period (The mobile communication device pre-fetches media content during hours of reduced traffic and/or download costs; [0052]).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramakrishnan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grunewald (2017/0351388).
As for claim 2, Ramakrishnan fails to discloses wherein the identifier and the list are obtained in an initial configuration procedure following execution of an application installed in the terminal.
In an analogous art, Grunewald discloses wherein the identifier and the list are obtained in an initial configuration procedure following execution of an application installed in the terminal ([0080]-[0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramakrishnan’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Grunewald, for the advantage of simplifying the process of installing relevant content to the user.
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramakrishnan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tomay (2014/0365617).
As for claim 4, Ramakrishnan discloses wherein:
the downloading comprises switching between a wake-up mode in which pre-downloading is enabled and a sleep mode in which pre-downloading is disabled, based on a wake-up time point and a sleep time point (The mobile communication device pre-fetches media content during hours of reduced traffic and/or download costs; [0052]),
However, Ramakrishnan fails to disclose:
the time periods include target slots, each determined based on the identifier from among a plurality of slots in each frame of the pre-download period;
the sleep time point is set based on an end time point of the target slot in a current frame, and the wake-up time point is set based on a start time point of a target slot of a next frame and whether there is content that has not been completely downloaded by the sleep time point.
In an analogous art, Tomay discloses:
the time periods include target slots, each determined based on the identifier from among a plurality of slots in each frame of the pre-download period ([0094]);
the sleep time point is set based on an end time point of the target slot in a current frame, and the wake-up time point is set based on a start time point of a target slot of a next frame and whether there is content that has not been completely downloaded by the sleep time point ([0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramakrishnan’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Tomay, for the advantage of conserving network resources.
As for claim 5, Ramakrishnan discloses wherein the downloading further comprises:
switching to the sleep mode even before the end time point or remaining in the sleep mode even after the start time point, based on whether a wireless connection status of the terminal satisfies a predetermined condition (“Wi-fi connection has degraded substantially…stop further pre-fetching activity”; [0049]).
As for claim 7, Ramakrishnan fails to disclose further comprising, after the downloading, downloading a remaining portion of incomplete content, which has not been completely downloaded within the pre-download period, in a next pre-download period.
In an analogous art, Tomay discloses after the downloading, downloading a remaining portion of incomplete content, which has not been completely downloaded within the pre-download period, in a next pre-download period ([0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramakrishnan’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Tomay, for the advantage of conserving network resources.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramakrishnan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cornelius (2015/0074022).
As for claim 6, Ramakrishnan fails to disclose further comprising, after the downloading, deleting incomplete content which has not been completely downloaded within the pre- download period.
In an analogous art, Cornelius discloses after the downloading, deleting incomplete content which has not been completely downloaded within the pre- download period ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramakrishnan’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Cornelius, for the advantage of conserving memory.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramakrishnan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wen (2015/0358689).
As for claim 8, Ramakrishnan fails to disclose after the downloading, based on whether incomplete content, which has not been completely downloaded within the pre-download period, is selected as playback content, streaming playback of a remaining portion of the incomplete content.
In an analogous art, Wen discloses after the downloading, based on whether incomplete content, which has not been completely downloaded within the pre-download period, is selected as playback content, streaming playback of a remaining portion of the incomplete content (With start of pre-fetched portion, computing device streams remainder of the content [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramakrishnan’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Wen, for the advantage of reducing unnecessary downloads.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8567. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-3:00 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, NATHAN FLYNN can be reached at (571)272-1915. 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.
SUMAIYA A. CHOWDHURY
Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights