DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s original claims (dated 28 MAY 2025) are the ones currently being examined. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted to Applicant that Allowable subject matter has been indicated in related Applications 17/539,590 and 18/414,852. Applicant is suggested to try and incorporate similar Allowable content into the current Application’s claims to try and move prosecution forward to an Allowance. Applicant is also cautioned not to repeat allowable subject matter in a manner that could lead to a double patenting rejection. This is just a note and suggestion by the Examiner, any amendments made by Applicant will be searched thoroughly before a final indication on Allowability is made.
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 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the steps of identifying storage locations and determining which to associate a user profile with based on previous consumption information and storage availability information. The limitations of identifying, receiving, determining, associating, and comparing, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic components. That is, other than reciting “circuitry” and/or “servers,” nothing in the claimed elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “circuitry” and “servers” language, “identifying, receiving, determining, associating, and comparing” in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually identifying and/or receiving various information about resources, and mentally making comparisons, determinations, and associations based on received history/profile information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of circuitry and/or servers. The circuitry and/or servers are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than performing generic computer functions and storage using generic components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of circuitry and/or servers to perform generic computer functions and storage amount to no more than use of a generic components. Mere performance of generic computer functions and storage using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 11, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharitonsky et al., US 2018/0255347 in view of Ramachandran et al., US 11,086,932.
Regarding claim 1, Kharitonsky discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: identifying a first shared pool, wherein the first shared pool comprises a first plurality of copies of a content item, stored at one or more first servers, determined to be sufficient to fulfill requests received in relation to a first plurality of user profiles associated with the first shared pool (system can identify/recognize at least a first shared cloud recorder/server that is associated with a particular location/group of users; Fig. 1, see U1 and REGION A, and page 2, paragraphs 18-20, and pages 2-3, paragraph 26, and Fig. 3, element 315A, and page 4, paragraphs 45-46, and with number(s) of copies sufficient to service requests; pages 3-4, paragraphs 37-42, and wherein based on location profile of a plurality of profiles relating to the device(s) and user(s), i.e. at least a first of multiple; page 2, paragraph 20);
identifying a second shared pool, wherein the second shared pool comprises a second plurality of copies of the content item, stored at one or more second servers, determined to be sufficient to fulfill requests received in relation to a second plurality of user profiles associated with the second shared pool (system can identify/recognize at least a second shared cloud recorder/server that is associated with a particular location/group of users; Fig. 1, see U2 and REGION B, and page 2, paragraphs 18-20, and pages 2-3, paragraph 26, and Fig. 3, element 315B, and page 4, paragraphs 45-46, and with number(s) of copies sufficient to service requests; pages 3-4, paragraphs 37-42, and wherein based on location profile of a plurality of profiles relating to the device(s) and user(s), i.e. at least a second of the multiple; page 2, paragraph 20);
receiving a request associated with the content item (can receive specific request(s) associated with the media; page 2, paragraphs 19-20 and 23-24), wherein the request is associated with a user profile not included in the first plurality of user profiles or the second plurality of user profiles (again with specific request(s); page 2, paragraphs 19-20 and 23-24, and wherein the request(s) can be associated with one of the plurality of location profiles relating to the device(s) of the user, i.e. interpreted to include at least a third, different from the first/second; page 2, paragraph 20, and of a plurality of users; page 2, paragraph 15, from a user that is not yet known; page 2, paragraph 26, and page 3, paragraph 27);
determining whether to associate with the first shared pool or the second shared pool based at least in part on a content consumption history associated with the user profile (system can compare content consumption patterns associated with users/devices at the specific locations, i.e. from user/device location profiles, and can determine which storage/pool location to associate with; page 5, paragraphs 54-57, and again can be based on one of the plurality of location profiles relating to the device(s) and user(s), i.e. interpreted to include at least a third, different from the first/second; page 2, paragraph 20, and of a plurality of users; page 2, paragraph 15, from a user that is not yet known; page 2, paragraph 26, and page 3, paragraph 27); and
based at least in part on the determining, associating with the first shared pool (can associate with the particular storage/pool based on the determination; page 5, paragraph 57).
While Kharitonsky does again disclose the user profile (one of the plurality of location profiles relating to the device(s) of the user, i.e. interpreted to include at least a third, different from the first/second; page 2, paragraph 20, and of a plurality of users; page 2, paragraph 15, from a user that is not yet known; page 2, paragraph 26, and page 3, paragraph 27), Kharitonsky does not explicitly disclose a request to record, and determining whether to associate a user with a particular storage pool.
In a related art, Ramachandran does disclose a request to record (recording request(s) from particular user; col. 4, lines 45-55), and determining whether to associate a user with a particular storage pool (determining storage based on request, and wherein with association of user with content at a particular storage location; col. 6, line 45 – col. 7, line 49, and Fig. 1, elements 105d and 145c, and col. 11, lines 6-12, and wherein with a plurality of storage locations/pools; col. 11, lines 52-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Kharitonsky and Ramachandran by allowing particular users/profiles to make particular recording requests and be associated with particular storage locations, in order to provide an improved system and method with techniques to orchestrate actions of a recording manager/encoder to streamline media recording in a cloud DVR (Ramachandran; col. 1, lines 30-32).
Regarding claim 4, Kharitonsky in view of Ramachandran discloses determining, in relation to associating the user profile with the first shared pool (Ramachandran; determining storage based on request, and wherein with association of user with content at a particular storage location; col. 6, line 45 – col. 7, line 49, and Fig. 1, elements 105d and 145c, and col. 11, lines 6-12, and wherein with a plurality of storage locations/pools; col. 11, lines 52-60, and Kharitonsky; one of the plurality of location profiles relating to the device(s) of the user; page 2, paragraph 20, and can associate with the particular storage/pool based on the determination; page 5, paragraph 57), to refrain from storing an additional copy of the content item in the first shared pool (Ramachandran; system can determine to not store an entire additional copy/replica based on particular determinations, and will only store a portion associated with a user at a particular storage location; col. 7, lines 23-49, and col. 11, lines 17-43, and Kharitonsky; system can determine not to record a copy at a particular location based on calculation in relation to a storage capacity availability, i.e. when availability reaches a particular amount/threshold, it will have an effect on storage at that location; page 4, paragraphs 42-44, and with particular number of copies of content; page 3, paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 5, Kharitonsky in view of Ramachandran discloses the determining to refrain from storing the additional copy is based at least in part on determining that available storage of the one or more first servers is at or above a threshold (Kharitonsky; system can determine not to record a copy at a particular location based on calculation in relation to a storage capacity availability, i.e. when availability reaches a particular amount/threshold, it will have an effect on storage at that location; page 4, paragraphs 42-44, and again with particular number of copies of content; page 3, paragraph 36, and Ramachandran; system can determine to not store an entire additional copy/replica based on particular determinations, and will only store a portion associated with a user at a particular storage location; col. 7, lines 23-49, and col. 11, lines 17-43).
Regarding claim 8, Kharitonsky in view of Ramachandran discloses receiving a request, associated with the user profile, to access the content item (Kharitonsky; request for playback/streaming; page 2, paragraphs 20 and 23-24, and again associated with a location profile of a plurality of profiles relating to the device(s) and user(s), i.e. at least a one of multiple; page 2, paragraph 20); and
causing the content item to be played at a device associated with the user profile using one of the first plurality of copies of the content item included in the first shared pool (Kharitonsky; request for playback/streaming; page 2, paragraphs 20 and 23-24, and based on streaming/playback request, content copy can be retrieved from the particular storage location/pool and sent for playback/consumption; page 2, paragraph 17, and page 5, paragraphs 54 and 56, and with at least a user device, i.e. such as a tablet or other devices; page 2, paragraph 19, and page 4, paragraph 45, and Ramachandran; with client device for playing and viewing DVR-related content; col. 4, lines 45-49, and for playback on user/various device(s); col. 5, lines 30-42).
Claim 11, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
control circuitry, and input/output circuitry (Kharitonsky; with at least processing hardware; pages 4-5, paragraph 53, and Ramachandran; with processors and input/output interface; col. 14, lines 12-23, and Fig. 7, elements 710 and 730).
Claim 14, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 15, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 18, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 8.
Claims 2, 6, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharitonsky et al., US 2018/0255347 in view of Ramachandran et al., US 11,086,932 and further in view of Goyal et al., US 2020/0126100.
Regarding claim 2, Kharitonsky in view of Ramachandran discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the determining whether to associate the user profile with the first shared pool or the second shared pool comprises using the content consumption history associated with the user profile and a first plurality of content consumption histories associated the first plurality of user profiles, respectively, of the first shared pool (Kharitonsky; system can utilize content consumption patterns associated with users/devices at the specific locations, i.e. from various user/device location profiles, and can determine which storage/pool location to associate with, i.e. such as the first; page 5, paragraphs 54-57, and again can be based on one of the plurality of location profiles relating to the device(s) of the user, i.e. interpreted to include at least a different from a first/second plurality; page 2, paragraph 20, and of a plurality of users; page 2, paragraph 15, from a user that is not yet known; page 2, paragraph 26, and page 3, paragraph 27, and Ramachandran; determining storage based on request, and wherein with association of user with content at a particular storage location; col. 6, line 45 – col. 7, line 49, and Fig. 1, elements 105d and 145c, and col. 11, lines 6-12, and wherein with a plurality of storage locations/pools; col. 11, lines 52-60); and
using the content consumption history associated with the user profile and a second plurality of content consumption histories associated the second plurality of user profiles, respectively, of the second shared pool (Kharitonsky; system can utilize content consumption patterns associated with users/devices at the specific locations, i.e. from various user/device location profiles, and can determine which storage/pool location to associate with, i.e. such as the second; page 5, paragraphs 54-57, and again can be based on one of the plurality of location profiles relating to the device(s) of the user, i.e. interpreted to include at least a different from a first/second plurality; page 2, paragraph 20, and of a plurality of users; page 2, paragraph 15, from a user that is not yet known; page 2, paragraph 26, and page 3, paragraph 27, and Ramachandran; determining storage based on request, and wherein with association of user with content at a particular storage location; col. 6, line 45 – col. 7, line 49, and Fig. 1, elements 105d and 145c, and col. 11, lines 6-12, and wherein with a plurality of storage locations/pools; col. 11, lines 52-60).
Kharitonsky in view of Ramachandran does not explicitly disclose comparing content consumptions histories associated with a profile with content consumption histories of a plurality of first and second user profiles.
In a related art, Goyal does disclose comparing content consumptions histories associated with a profile with content consumption histories of a plurality of first and second user profiles (system can determine profiles associated with users and can utilize and compare the content viewing/consumption patterns of all the users, i.e. the user profile with a plurality of first and second user profiles; page 5, paragraphs 44-45 and 47, and page 6, paragraph 58, and page 10, paragraph 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Kharitonsky, Ramachandran, and Goyal by allowing association/grouping of users based on similarities in profiles/viewing information, in order to provide an improved system and method for segmenting users based on content viewing patterns and inferring user-demographic correlation for individual users based on demographic placement information (Goyal; page 2, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 6, Kharitonsky in view of Ramachandran discloses all the claimed limitation of claim 4, as well as the determining to refrain from storing the additional copy (Ramachandran; system can determine to not store an entire additional copy/replica based on particular determinations, and will only store a portion associated with a user at a particular storage location; col. 7, lines 23-49, and col. 11, lines 17-43, and Kharitonsky; system can determine not to record a copy at a particular location; page 4, paragraphs 42-44, and with particular number of copies of content; page 3, paragraph 36), and a first plurality of user profiles, respectively, of the first shared pool (Kharitonsky; with use of location profiles relating to the device(s)/user(s), i.e. interpreted to include at least a portion of a first plurality; page 2, paragraph 20, and of a plurality of users; page 2, paragraph 15, and associated with a particular storage/pool location, i.e. such as the first; page 5, paragraphs 54-57, and Fig. 1, see U1 and REGION A, and page 2, paragraphs 18-20, and pages 2-3, paragraph 26, and Fig. 3, element 315A, and page 4, paragraphs 45-46).
Kharitonsky in view of Ramachandran does not explicitly disclose operations based at least in part on comparing a content consumption history associated with a user profile to a first plurality of content consumption histories associated a first plurality of user profiles.
In a related art, Goyal does disclose operations based at least in part on comparing a content consumption history associated with a user profile to a first plurality of content consumption histories associated a first plurality of user profiles (operations can be performed based on system determining profiles associated with users and utilizing and comparing the content viewing/consumption patterns of all the users, i.e. the user profile with a plurality of other, i.e. first plurality of, user profiles; page 5, paragraphs 44-45 and 47, and page 6, paragraph 58, and page 10, paragraph 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Kharitonsky, Ramachandran, and Goyal by allowing certain operations to be performed for particular users based on similarities in profiles/viewing information, in order to provide an improved system and method for segmenting users based on content viewing patterns and inferring user-demographic correlation for individual users based on demographic placement information (Goyal; page 2, paragraph 9).
Claim 12, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 16, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharitonsky et al., US 2018/0255347 in view of Ramachandran et al., US 11,086,932 and further in view of Darcie et al., US 2009/0077254.
Regarding claim 3, Kharitonsky in view of Ramachandran discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as a portion of the first plurality of user profiles (Kharitonsky; with use of location profiles relating to the device(s)/user(s), i.e. interpreted to include at least a portion of a first plurality; page 2, paragraph 20, and of a plurality of users; page 2, paragraph 15), recorded content (Kharitonsky; recorded content; page 2, paragraph 17, and page 4, paragraph 42, and Ramachandran; with recordings; col. 2, lines 39-48), and wherein the associating the user profile with the first shared pool is based at least in part on determining (Kharitonsky; can associate with the particular storage/pool based on a determination; page 5, paragraph 57, and Ramachandran; determining storage based on request, and wherein with association of user with content at a particular storage location; col. 6, line 45 – col. 7, line 49, and Fig. 1, elements 105d and 145c, and col. 11, lines 6-12, and wherein with a plurality of storage locations/pools; col. 11, lines 52-60).
Kharitonsky in view of Ramachandran does not explicitly disclose determining that at least a portion of users are frequently provided content via a common edge server, and associating based at least in part on determining that a user is frequently provided content via the common edge server.
In a related art, Darcie does disclose determining that at least a portion of users are frequently provided content via a common edge server, and associating based at least in part on determining that a user is frequently provided content via the common edge server (can group, i.e. associate, a user with multiple users based on determining that the users share a same local server, i.e. frequently provided content with the same edge type server; page 5, paragraph 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Kharitonsky, Ramachandran, and Darcie, by allowing grouping of users based on geographical similarities, in order to provide an improved system and method for distributing media using a communication network to a plurality of users in the network (Darcie; page 3, paragraph 31).
Claim 13, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights