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 .
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,287,828.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are anticipated by the claims of the parent patent, USPN 12,287,828. For example, claim 1 of the present application and corresponding claim 1 of the parent is compared below.
USPN 12,287,828 – Claim 1
Application No. 19/090,655 - Claim 1
A method, comprising:
identifying one or more streaming video sessions for one or more users based on a plurality of events relating to streaming video for the one or more users;
storing data for the one or more streaming video sessions in an electronic database, based on the plurality of events;
identifying a plurality of metadata relating to the events;
determining, based on a threshold value, a time to store at least a portion of the plurality of metadata in the electronic database, the time occurring after storing the data for the one or more streaming video sessions, comprising: identifying a target time based on the threshold value; calculating a write probability stochastically based on a proximity of a first time to the target time; and
storing the at least a portion of the plurality of metadata prior to the target time, based on the write probability; storing at least the portion of the plurality of metadata in the electronic database at the determined time; and
responding to a query for metrics relating to the one or more streaming video sessions by aggregating at least a portion of the stored data.
A method, comprising:
identifying one or more streaming video sessions for one or more users based on a plurality of events relating to streaming video for the one or more users;
storing data for the one or more streaming video sessions in an electronic database, based on the plurality of events;
identifying a plurality of metadata relating to the events;
determining, based on a threshold value, a time to store at least a portion of the plurality of metadata in the electronic database, the time occurring after storing the data for the one or more streaming video sessions;
storing at least the portion of the plurality of metadata in the electronic database at the determined time; and
responding to a query for metrics relating to the one or more streaming video sessions by aggregating at least a portion of the stored data.
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.
Claims 1, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US 2023/0140605 A1), published on May 04, 2023, in view of NIEMIED et al (NIEMIED US 2022/0284219 A1), published on September 08, 2022.
As to claim 1, Jain teaches “identifying one or more streaming video sessions for one or more users based on a plurality of events relating to streaming video for the one or more users” in par. 0046 ("...At buffering block 453, the video session buffers, or loads, the video onto a user device, and the digital service evaluation system 100 may collect performance data related to the time required to load the video..."; the buffering/loading video session corresponds to one or more streaming video sessions; buffering/loading corresponds to event relating to streaming video).
Jain teaches “storing data for the one or more streaming video sessions in an electronic database, based on the plurality of events” in par. 0046 (performance data is collected).
Jain teaches “identifying a plurality of metadata relating to the events” in par. 0046 (time required to load data corresponds to metadata relating to the events).
Jain teaches “determining, based on a threshold value, a time to store at least a portion of the plurality of metadata in the electronic database, the time occurring after the storing the data for the one or more streaming video sessions” in par. 0053 (“…the digital service evaluation system 100 may combine this information with the weights of the performance metrics and the performance data obtained over the time period from March to April, and determine which performance metric caused the drop in score from data point 711 to data point 713…”. Noting that “the time period from March to April” corresponds to a threshold value in time occurring after the storing the data (performance data) for the one or more streaming video sessions).
Jain teaches “storing at least the portion of the plurality of metadata in the electronic database at the determined time” in par. 0049 (“…The digital service evaluation system 100 may use a similar data structure (not shown) to store performance data regarding, and calculate an overall score for, a service as a whole, a customer, a device or group of devices, a sub-session, a device type…”).
It appears Jain does not explicitly teach “responding to a query for metrics relating to the one or more streaming video sessions by aggregating at least a portion of the stored data”.
However, NIEMIEC teaches “responding to a query for metrics relating to the one or more streaming video sessions by aggregating at least a portion of the stored data” in par. 0009 (“…to process a query, that is based at least in part on the reaction information and at least in part on the primary video metadata, to retrieve, from a database residing on the at least one storage device, at least one possible event summarization match for the one or more events…”. Noting that “event summarization” correspond to metrics relating to the one or more streaming video sessions by aggregating at least a portion of the stored data).
Jain and NIEMIEC are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data stream processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to query metrics information (disclosed by Jain) including “responding to a query for metrics relating to the one or more streaming video sessions by aggregating at least a portion of the stored data”, as suggested by NIEMIEC in order to collect summarization data (see NIEMIEC par. 0009).
As to claim 12, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 1.
As to claim 17, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 1.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US 2023/0140605 A1), published on May 04, 2023 and in view of NIEMIED et al (NIEMIED US 2022/0284219 A1), published on September 08, 2022, in further view of PERIYAELUVAN et al (“Periyaeluvan” US 2022/0030300 A1), published on January 27, 2022.
As to claim 5, it appears Jain and NIEMIED do not explicitly teach “identifying a session state for at least one of the one or more streaming video sessions; and modifying the session state based on at least one of the plurality of events”.
However, Periyaeluvan teaches “identifying a session state for at least one of the one or more streaming video sessions; and modifying the session state based on at least one of the plurality of events” in par. 0006 (streaming session state is changed based on data event).
Jain, NIEMIED and Periyaeluvan are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data stream processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to process video stream (disclosed by Jain) including “identifying a session state for at least one of the one or more streaming video sessions; and modifying the session state based on at least one of the plurality of events”, as suggested by Periyaeluvan in order to maintain streaming session state (see Periyaeluvan par. 0006).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US 2023/0140605 A1), published on May 04, 2023 and in view of NIEMIED et al (NIEMIED US 2022/0284219 A1), published on September 08, 2022 in further view of Arnold et al (“Arnold” US 2022/0020473 A1, published on January 20, 2022.
As to claim 6, it appears Jain and NIEMIED do not explicitly teach “selecting between a stateless pipeline and a stateful pipeline for processing each of the plurality of events”.
However, Arnold teaches “selecting between a stateless pipeline and a stateful pipeline for processing each of the plurality of events” in par. 0029 (“The EHA makes programmatic determinations on what actions should be taken for an event, or a series of events, using various information processing techniques; such as, but not limited to stateful stream processing, stateless stream processing, and batch processing”).
Jain, NIEMIED and Arnold are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data stream processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to process video stream (disclosed by Jain) including “selecting between a stateless pipeline and a stateful pipeline for processing each of the plurality of events”, as suggest by Arnold (par. 0029) in order to determine relevant action needs to be taken based on incoming event.
Claims 7, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US 2023/0140605 A1), published on May 04, 2023 and in view of NIEMIED et al (NIEMIED US 2022/0284219 A1), published on September 08, 2022 in further view of Skraparlis et al (“Skraparlis” US 2015/0288765 A1), published on October 8, 2015) and Colombier et al (“Colombier” US 2023/0214854 A1), published on July 06, 2023.
As to claim 7, it appears Jain and NIEMIED do not explicitly teach “identifying a dead session recorded in the electronic database, and determining to remove the dead session from the electronic database based on one or more characteristics of the dead session”.
However, Skraparlis teaches “identifying a dead session recorded in the electronic database, and determining to remove the dead session from the electronic database based on one or more characteristics of the dead session” in par. 0178 (dead session is flushed from database).
Jain, NIEMIED and Skraparlis are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data stream processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to process video stream (disclosed by Jain) including “identifying a dead session recorded in the electronic database, and determining to remove the dead session from the electronic database based on one or more characteristics of the dead session”, as suggested by Skraparlis in order to perform peer revival detection (see Skraparlis paragraphs [0176-0178]).
It appears Jain, NIEMIED and Skraparlis do not explicitly teach “storing data sufficient to reconstruct each of the one or more streaming video sessions in an electronic repository; and writing one or more correction rows to the electronic database based on the plurality of events, the one or more correction rows relating to events received in a different order from when the events occurred”.
However, Colombier teaches “storing data sufficient to reconstruct each of the one or more streaming video sessions in an electronic repository; and writing one or more correction rows to the electronic database based on the plurality of events, the one or more correction rows relating to events received in a different order from when the events occurred” in par. 0036, claim 1.
Jain, NIEMIED, Skraparlis and Colombier are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data stream processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to process video stream (disclosed by Jain) including “storing data sufficient to reconstruct each of the one or more streaming video sessions in an electronic repository; and writing one or more correction rows to the electronic database based on the plurality of events, the one or more correction rows relating to events received in a different order from when the events occurred”, as suggested by Colombier in order to reconstruct data session when needed (see Colombier par. 0036).
As to claim 15, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 7.
As to claim 19, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 7.
Claims 8-11, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US 2023/0140605 A1), published on May 04, 2023, in view of NIEMIED et al (NIEMIED US 2022/0284219 A1), published on September 08, 2022, and in further view of Jou et al (“Jou” US 11,704,319 B1), published on July 18, 2023.
As to claim 8, it appears Jain and NIEMIED do not explicitly teach “identifying two or more composable aspects of the query; querying the electronic database using the two more composable aspects of the query, in place of the query”.
However, Jou teaches “identifying two or more composable aspects of the query; querying the electronic database using the two more composable aspects of the query, in place of the query” in col. 22: 6-15 (fig. 6M and 6N show the division (ratio) of SUM querying values (corresponding using the two more composable aspects of the query)).
Jain, NIEMIED, and Jou are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, database querying system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to process video stream (disclosed by Jain) including “identifying two or more composable aspects of the query; querying the electronic database using the two more composable aspects of the query, in place of the query”, as suggested by Jou, in order to implemented sub-queries for final query (see Jou col. 22).
Jou teaches “and responding to the query using results of querying the electronic database using the two more composable aspects of the query” in col. 22: 6-15.
As to claim 16, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 8.
As to claim 20, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 8.
As to claim 9, Jou teaches “storing the results of querying the electronic database using the two more composable aspects of the query in an electronic cache” in col. 22: 6-15.
As to claim 10, Jou teaches “wherein the two or more composable aspects of the query comprise two or more components of a ratio, and wherein responding to the query comprises calculating the ratio based on two more or more components of the ratio retrieved from the electronic database” in col. 22: 6-15.
As to claim 11, Jou teaches “wherein the query relates to a time period, the two or more composable aspects comprises subsets of the time period, and responding to the query comprises combining results from the subsets of the time period” in col. 9: 22-25.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 13-14, 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure:
. KENDALL et al (US 2024/0070195 A1)
. LOWE (US 2023/0305904 A1)
. Colombier et al (US 2023/0214854 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loc Tran whose telephone number is 571-272-8485. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm; First Fri Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on (571)-270-1698. 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.
/LOC TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164