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 .
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to AIA
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
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.
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 21-40 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Dweak et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0070078 A1) in view of Barrett (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0180122 A1).
As to claim 21, Dweak et al teach a method (see abstract and figures 1-4) comprising: receiving data characterizing a first request to initiate an interactive session with a cloud-based client application (figure 2, pars. 0037-0040, initiate a request); reserving, based on the received data, one or more application engines associated with an application engine pool from a plurality of application engine pools; initiating the interactive session with the cloud-based client application on the reserved one or more application engines; providing media data associated with the interactive session (figure 1, pars. 0029-0030, figure 3, pars. 0042-0049, figure 4, pars. 0051-0052, process the request and provide result when the process completed).
However, , Dweak et al do not teach that receiving data characterizing a second request to end the interactive session with the cloud- based client application; and deallocating the one or more application engines upon receiving the second request.
Barrett teaches a method comprising: receiving a first request to initiate an interactive session with a cloud-based client application (figure 2, par. 0021, reference teaches that user and server initiate an interactive session); receiving a second request to end the interactive session with the cloud- based client application (figure 2, pars. 0029-0030, reference teaches that server receiving timeout message from user); and deallocating the one or more application engines upon receiving the second request (figure 2, pars. 0029 & 0038, reference teaches that server terminates the user session).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Barrett as stated above with the method of Dweak et al for terminating the interactive session between user and server because it would have improved the system utilization by making server resource and data available to other users on the network without delaying the interactive session process.
As to claims 22-23, Dweak et al teach that reserving the one or more application engines further comprises: determining an availability of the one or more application engines based on historical usage trends and the size of the application engine pool; and reserving the one or more application engines based on the determined availability and further comprising: resizing the application engine pool by adding additional application engines to the application engine pool in response to determining the availability of the one or more application engines (figure 1, pars. 0029-0035).
As to claims 24-27, Dweak et al teach that the application engine pool is resized in response to determining the availability of the one or more application engines is below a predetermined threshold; the application engine pool is dynamically resized according to historical usage trends and the size of the application engine pool; the application engine pool is dynamically resized using a predictive model trained on the historical usage data and the size of the application engine pool; and resizing the application engine pool is dynamically performed by pre-warming the added one or more application engines (figure 1, pars. 0030 & 0035, figure 5, pars. 0054-0059, resizing pool based on usage, availability, and work load size).
As to claim 28, Dweak et al teach that each application engine pool from the plurality of application engine pools can support a single cloud-based client application (figure 1, pars. 0032-0034, figure 3, pars. 0046-0048).
As to claim 29-30, Dweak et al teach that recommending a second interactive session with additional cloud-based client application based on historical usage trends and the size of the application engine pool; and providing the media data associated with the interactive session further comprises streaming the media data from the cloud-based client application to a first client device (figures 3-4, pars. 0041-0052, figure 13, par. 0092).
As to claims 31-40, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 21-30 above, since claims 31-40 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the claims 21-30 and claims 31-40 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 21-30.
Additional Reference
The examiner as of general interest cites the following reference.
a. Yoakum et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0191655 A1.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. 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.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights