DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loh et al. (hereinafter ‘Loh’, Pub. No. 2021/0240372) in view of Applegate et al. (hereinafter ‘Applegate’, Pub. No. 2012/0137336).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 9, Loh teaches a management device (with corresponding managing method and computer-readable device storing a program) that manages a target video file obtained by recording a live-streamed video (where content, including streaming video, is moved around on different devices based on access and storage cost, [0026]; [0033]-[0041]), the management device comprising
at least one memory configured to store program code; and at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code, the program code comprising (these elements are inherent in computing devices as the ones used on the management system: servers, etc., [0247]. Code is construed to be software code):
moving code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to move, in a case in which the target video file is stored in a first storage and, thereafter, a request from a user is not received within a predetermined period ([0049], where content is moved to a second storage, for example, after a predetermined amount of time since last access time), the target video file to a second storage different than the first storage (content is moved around from different storage locations),
estimating code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to estimate a change in a future request from the user for the target video file after moving the target video file to the second storage (estimation of access of the video in a future period of time, [0066]),
determining code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine, based on respective management costs of the first storage and the second storage identified from the estimated change in the future request from the user for the target video file, whether to store the target video file in the first storage (a determination is made on whether moving content is dynamic. It takes into account access cost and storage cost for the final decision of having the content at the time it is needed when requested, [0049]- [0054]), and
storing code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to, based on results of the determination, store the target video file in the first storage again ([0049]-[0054]), wherein the first storage has a higher storage cost for the target video file than the second storage, and the first storage has a lower communication cost than the second storage (a ‘hotter storage’ may have a storage cost higher than a ‘colder storage’ and superiority in ‘access cost’ as well, [0026]; [0033]-[0041]).
On the other hand, Loh does not explicitly teach
wherein the estimating code is configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to estimate the change in the future request based on a past request situation of a different video file rather than the target video file, the different video file having a pattern of requests determined to be similar to a pattern of requests of the target video file and belonging to a category identical to a category to which the target video file belongs.
However, in an analogous art, Applegate teaches a system that forecasts demand for media content items, including new and existing media, based on historical demand. The system moves the content based partially on a cost function and the forecast demand (Abstract; [0023]). The system uses a mixed integer programming (MIP) to determine the placement of videos. MIP uses demand for each video as an input, which is predicted through the demand of videos and may be based on a similar video request history. The pattern of request of the existing similar content in the past may be similar to the item expected to be placed, along with their category, and then its predicted demand is determined ([0063]- [0069]). Applegate frequently determines demands of the videos and moves them around. Additionally, the system tries to balance storage and migration costs with demand. Storage and migration costs could consider small compared to a number of requests and what it would cost having to transfer the video every time from a second node ([0111]- [0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loh’s invention with Applegate’s feature of moving content based on cost and demand, where the demand is based on past demand history of content that is different and from the same category for the benefit of placing new content based on similar content.
Regarding claim 2, Loh and Applegate teach wherein the one or more processors
the program code causes at least one of the at least one processor to instruct a streaming server about whether to set the video file stored in the first storage or in the second storage to be distributed, and instruct the streaming server that the video file stored in the second storage is to be distributed in a case in which the video file is moved to the second storage, and instructs the streaming server that video file stored in the first storage is to be distributed in a case in which the video file is stored in the first storage again (As soon as determination to whether moving or not a file is performed, content is moved or not from a storage to another one for distribution/access, [0026]; [0035]; [0042]; Figs. 3-6, all ‘Yes’ arrows and 710, Fig. 7. Being computing devices, it’s inherent that instructions/commands are transmitted. When the content file is returned to the hotter storage, the file is served from there).
Regarding claim 3, Loh and Applegate teach wherein the one or more processors
acquiring code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire a request situation from the user, and the estimating code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to estimate, based on, among the acquired request situation from the user, a past request situation of the video file similar to the request situation to-date of the video file, the change in the request from the user for the video file (based on off-peak or on-peak user’s request situation, amount of network traffic requests threshold, determination of whether or not moving content is still established by also using historical data; [0108]-[0110]; [0121]-[0124]).
Regarding claim 4, Loh and Applegate teach wherein (determination of network traffic could be determined by measuring requests are below or above a threshold, [0108]).
Regarding claim 5, Loh and Applegate teach wherein ([0123], where historical data includes the type of content item).
Regarding claim 6, Loh and Applegate teach wherein the program code further comprises:
acquiring code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire a request situation from the user, and estimate, based on the acquired a request situation from the user, the change in the request from the user for the video file using a learning model machined-trained for each category to which the video file belongs (at least [0204]-[0208], machine learning models are used trained with historical information including category of the files).
Regarding claim 7, Loh and Applegate teach wherein the determining code is configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine whether to store the video file in the first storage using a learning model in which, among the change in the request from the user expressed by the acquired request situation from the user, a change of the video file to be stored in the first storage is used as teaching data ([0066]; [0205]-[0207]; [0257], where the model learns from the historic data of decisions taken to switch content among storage devices and transformations performed on the data/content).
Regarding claim 10, Loh and Applegate teach wherein the estimating code is configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to estimate the change in the future request when a number of requests for the target video file within a predetermined time period is greater than or equal to a predetermined value (Loh: [0114]).
Regarding claim 11, Loh and Applegate teach wherein the estimating code is configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to estimate the change in the future request based on past data having a degree of similarity to the request situation to-date of the target video file that is greater than or equal to a predetermined value (Applegate: [0036]-[0038]; [0066]-[0068]; [0131]).
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 OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM.
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 571-2721915. 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.
/OMAR S PARRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights