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;
stochastically determining, based at least in part on a target time
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, it recites “stochastically determining, based at least in part on a target time ” in which the stochastically determining of a time based on a target time is not disclosed in the Applicant’s specification. According to Applicant’s specification paragraph 0046, it is disclosed “the QoS analysis service can calculate a stochastic write probability representing a probability that the QoS analysis service should write a given metadata value (or collection of metadata values) at a given time”. The Applicant specification discloses of a stochastic write probability determination at a given time. In other words, a given time, is disclosed (by the Applicant’s specification) as an arbitrary input to calculate (determine) a stochastic write probability rather than an output of a calculation, as newly amended. Nowhere in the Applicant’s specification discloses of a stochastic determination of a time. It is noted that “the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] was in possession of the invention that is claimed”. Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Claims 2-11 are dependent from claim 1 and thus are inherited the above deficiency.
As to claim 12, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 1.
Claims 13-16 are dependent from claim 12 and thus are inherited the above deficiency.
As to claim 17, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 1.
Claims 18-20 are dependent from claim 17 and thus are inherited the above deficiency.
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)
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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. 9:30am-7pm; 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
Prosecution Insights