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 .
Examiner’s Note
It is noted that non-functional descriptive material does not patentably distinguish over prior art that otherwise renders the claims unpatentable. See for example, MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2112.01(III). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Exparte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (discussing cases pertaining to non-functional descriptive material) see also BPAI’s decision in Appeal 2009-010851 (for Ser. No. 10/622,876) or BPAI’s decision in Appeal 2011-011929 (for Ser. No. 11/709,170), pages 6-7. In this case, a particular type of data such as “capacity metric”, “quality metric”, “cost metric”… could be considered as non-functional descriptive material and are not required to give patentable weight because these particular types of data do not functionally change the structure or operation of a system of using metrics for different types of data to allocating/assigning a content delivery event to different content delivery networks. The limitations of “capacity metric”, “quality metric”, “cost metric”…. are only given patentable weight of different types of data.
Although non-functional descriptive material are not required to be considered, all claim limitations including non-functional descriptive material are known by prior art as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-11, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempanna et al. (US 20220217202) in view of She et al. (US 20230041976).
Regarding claim 20, Kempanna discloses a system (see figures 1-2) comprising:
one or more processors (CPUs/processors at network element, load balancer, etc. such as processors 220A, 220B…– see include, but are not limited to, figure 2, paragraphs 0015, 0073, 0076-0077); and
one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media (computer-readable storage medium – see include, but are not limited to, figure 2, paragraph 0077)coupled to one or more of the processors and comprising instructions operable when executed by one or more of the processors to cause the system (see for example, paragraphs 0076-0077, claims 8-14) to perform operations comprising:
for each content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks (for each load balancer 130 of the plurality of load balancers 130 – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 3, 6), receiving a plurality of parameters at least from the content delivery network, wherein the plurality of parameters is processed into a plurality of metrics (for each load balancer 130, obtaining a plurality of parameters in capacity information at least from the load balancer 130, wherein the plurality of parameters in capability information is processed into a plurality of metrics or scores associated with hardware resource, software resources, network conditions, health of backend server, or any combination thereof – see include, but are not limited to, figure 1, figure 3 (step 310), figure 4, paragraphs 0027, 0029, 0033, 0041);
identifying a scheduling scene for the content delivery network (identifying network condition, traffic, load information, packet per second, etc. for the load balancer – see include, but are not limited to, paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0041, 0043, 0067-0068);
determining a weight for each metric of the plurality of metrics based on the scheduling scene (determining a weight k1, k2, k3,…for each metric of plurality of metrics of network condition, hardware resource, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, figure 4, paragraphs 0033, 0041, 0045);
determining a score for the content delivery network based on the plurality of metrics and the respective weights (determining a score and/cost for the load balancer based on plurality of metrics for network condition, hardware resource, etc. and the respective weight k1, k2, k3, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, figures 3-4, 6, paragraphs 0046, 0049-0052) ; and
based on the score of each content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks, allocating a content delivery event among the plurality of content delivery networks (based on the score and/or cost of each load balancer of the plurality of load balancers, allocating a content delivery event/service among the plurality of load balancers – see include, but are not limited to, figures , paragraphs 0046, 0050-0052).
Kempanna does not explicitly disclose score of each delivery network comprises scheduling score.
She discloses determining a score for content delivery network based on plurality of metrics and respective weights (determining a score for content delivery network (CDN) to delivery content based on plurality of metrics of performance, quality of service, failure ratios, etc. and respective weights/scores – see include, but are not limited to, figures 3-6, paragraphs 0025-0026, 0031, 0036-0037, 0051-0053, 0058) ; and
based on the scheduling score of each content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks, allocating a content delivery event among the plurality of content delivery networks (based on the scheduling score including global constrained scores, allocating a content delivery event/service among the plurality of content delivery network 106 such as selecting the content delivery network based on ranking using the global constrained scores – see include, but are not limited to, figure 5, paragraphs 0037, 0059, 0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempanna with the teachings including determining scheduling score and allocating each content delivery network based on scheduling score as taught by She in order to yield predictable result of overall quality of service of the content delivery networks may be maintained more optimally (see paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 19, limitations of one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media that correspond to the limitations of the system in claim 20 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 20. In particular, Kempanna in view of She discloses one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying software that is operable when executed to perform operations (see for example, Kempanna: paragraph 0077; She: figures 7-8, paragraphs 0088, 0093, 0109-0110) comprising:
for each content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks, receiving a plurality of parameters at least from the content delivery network, wherein the plurality of parameters is processed into a plurality of metrics;
identifying a scheduling scene for the content delivery network;
determining a weight for each metric of the plurality of metrics based on the scheduling scene;
determining a scheduling score for the content delivery network based on the plurality of metrics and the respective weights; and
based on the scheduling score of each content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks, allocating a content delivery event among the plurality of content delivery networks (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 20).
Regarding claim 1, limitations of the method as claimed that correspond to the limitations of the system in claim 20 and are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 20 above. In particular, Kempanna in view of She discloses a method comprising:
for each content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks, receiving a plurality of parameters at least from the content delivery network, wherein the plurality of parameters is processed into a plurality of metrics;
identifying a scheduling scene for the content delivery network;
determining a weight for each metric of the plurality of metrics based on the scheduling scene;
determining a scheduling score for the content delivery network based on the plurality of metrics and the respective weights; and
based on the scheduling score of each content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks, allocating a content delivery event among the plurality of content delivery networks (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 20 above).
Regarding claim 2, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of metrics includes a capacity metric indicative of a network capacity associated with the content delivery network, a quality metric indicative of a service quality associated with the content delivery network, and a cost metric indicative of an operational cost associated with the content delivery network (see include, but are not limited to, Kempanna: figures 3-4, paragraphs 0026-0027, 0041, 0043; She: figures 5-6, paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 3, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the scheduling scene comprises a burst scene or a normal scene (e.g., burst or spike time – see include, but are not limited to, Kempanna: paragraph 0067-0068).
Regarding claim 4, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the scheduling scene is determined based on one or more of the plurality of parameters (scheduling or selection condition/scene is determined based on parameters of network condition, hardware source, failure ratios, etc. see include, but are not limited to, Kempanna: paragraphs 0027, 0043; She: paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 5, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of parameters is further received from a user device associated with the content delivery network (plurality of parameters based on request/feedback is further received from client device associated with load balancer/CDN – see include, but are not limited to, Kempanna: figures 3, 5-6, paragraphs 0012, 0052, 0072; She: paragraphs 0019-21, 0023, 0025).
Regarding claim 6, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of metrics is normalized (see Kempanna: paragraph 0046; She: figure 5, paragraphs 0044-46, 0050-0051, 0053) .
Regarding claim 7, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: ranking the scheduling scores of the plurality of content delivery networks, wherein the content delivery event is allocated to a particular content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks based on the ranking (see include, but are not limited to, She: figure 4, paragraphs 0016, 0025, 0036-0037).
Regarding claim 8, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the content delivery event is allocated to a particular content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks having the highest scheduling score (see include, but are not limited to, She: paragraphs 0037, 0052, 0059, 0060).
Regarding claim 9, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the content delivery event includes an ingest event for receiving a digital content stream from a user device or an egress event for transmitting a digital content stream to a user device (e.g., ingress event for receiving content/packet from a client device or ingress packet for transmitting digital content/video/packet to a client device – see include, but are not limited to, Kempanna: figure 4, paragraphs 0020, 0043, 0072; She: figure 7, paragraphs 0102-0103).
Regarding claim 10, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the content delivery event is allocated among the plurality of content delivery networks in a tiered manner (content delivery event is allocated among a plurality of load balancers/content delivery networks (CDNs) in levels, rows, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, Kempanna: figures 1, 5-7; She: figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein allocating the content delivery event among the plurality of content delivery networks comprises one or more of: allocating a new content delivery event to a particular content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks; or reallocating an existing content delivery event to an alternative content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks (allocating/assigning/steering new or existing content delivery event to particular content network or alternative content network of load balancers/CDNs based on network condition, hardware source, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, Kempanna: figures 3-5, paragraphs 0012, 0051, 0053; She: paragraphs 0016, 0027-0029, 0048).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempanna et al. (US 20220217202) in view of She et al. (US 20230041976) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Venkatraman et al. (US 20180115626).
Regarding claim 12, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: determining whether a capacity metric of the plurality of metrics for a particular content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks exceeds a threshold (determining whether capacity metric such as quality, network condition, failure ratios, loading capability, etc. exceeds a threshold/predetermined condition - see include, but are not limited to, Kempanna: figures 3-7, paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0034, 0043, 0046, 0052; She: paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0030); and
based on determining that the capacity metric for the particular content delivery network exceeds the threshold, change the service quality for the content delivery event associated with the particular content delivery network (changing the service quality, cost, etc. for the content based on the network condition, loading capability, failure ratios, exceeds/more than predetermined condition/feature – see include, but are not limited to, Kempanna: figures 3-7, paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0034, 0043, 0046, 0052; She: paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0030).
However, Kempanna in view of She does not explicitly disclose degrading a service quality for content delivery event.
Venkatraman discloses determining whether a capability metric for particular content delivery network exceeds the threshold (CPU usage exceeds threshold based first amount of token available less than second amount of tokens associated with transcoding content – see include, but are not limited to, figures 3-5, paragraphs 0004, 0030-0032, 0035); and
based on determining that the capability metric for particular content delivery network exceeds the threshold, degrading a service quality for the content delivery event associated with the particular content delivery network (based on CPU usage for particular network exceeds the threshold, degrading a service by not transcoding or reduce a number of tokens associated with the transcoding the content for the content delivery event associated with the network – see figures 3-4, abstract, paragraphs 0004, 0030-0032, 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempanna in view of She with the teaching of degrading a service quality for content delivery network based on metric exceeds a threshold as taught by Venkatraman in order to yield predictable result for adaptively transcoding media in communications network such that computer processing resources are effectively utilized to deal with varying traffic patterns in the communications network (see abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: determining whether a capacity for each content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks exceeds a threshold; and
based on determining that the capacity for each content delivery network exceeds the threshold, steering/processing content for the plurality of content delivery networks (see similar discussion and cited portions in claim 12 above).
Kempanna in view of She does not explicitly disclose bypass transcoding based on transcoding capacity exceeds a threshold.
Venkatraman discloses determining whether a transcoding capacity for each content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks exceeds a threshold (determine whether first amount of tokens available in each of the plurality of cores/CPUs exceeds a threshold/usage level – see include, but are not limited to, figures 3-5, paragraphs 0004, 0030-0032, 0035); and
based on determining that the transcoding capacity for each content delivery network exceeds the threshold, bypass transcoding for the particular content delivery network (based on CPU usage for particular network exceeds the threshold, bypass transcoding the content for the plurality of content delivery network – see figures 3-4, abstract, paragraphs 0004, 0030-0032, 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempanna in view of She with the teaching of bypass transcoding for the plurality of content delivery networks based on transcoding capacity exceeds a threshold as taught by Venkatraman in order to yield predictable result for adaptively transcoding media in communications network such that computer processing resources are effectively utilized to deal with varying traffic patterns in the communications network (see abstract).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempanna et al. (US 20220217202) in view of She et al. (US 20230041976) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Saeedasr (US20180146231).
Regarding claim 13, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether a capacity for a particular content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks exceeds a threshold (see similar discussion in claim 12 above and include, but are not limited to, Kempanna: figures 3-7, paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0034, 0043, 0046, 0052; She: paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0030); and
based on determining that the capacity for the particular content delivery network exceeds the threshold, allocating an existing content delivery event to an alternative content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 12 and also include, but are not limited to, Kempanna: figures 3-7, paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0034, 0043, 0046, 0052; She: paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0030).
Kempanna in view of She does not explicitly disclose based on determining that the transcoding capacity for particular content delivery network exceeds a threshold, reallocating an existing content delivery event to an alternative content delivery network.
Saeedasr discloses determining whether a transcoding capacity for a particular content delivery network exceeds a threshold (determining whether the transcoding capacity of access point exceeds a threshold or access point does not have sufficient processing power to transcode received content– see figure 3, step 320 – No, paragraph 0005); and
based on determining that the transcoding capacity for the particular content delivery network exceeds the threshold, reallocating an existing content delivery event to an alternative content delivery network of the plurality of content delivery networks (forward the received content to gateway device based on the access point does not have sufficient processing power to transcode the received content – see figure 3, paragraphs 0005, 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempanna in view of She with the teaching of reallocating existing content delivery event to an alternative content delivery event based on transcoding capacity for a particular content delivery network exceeds a threshold as taught by Saeedasr in order to yield predictable result of not adding more cost to an equipment/network to process received content – see paragraph 0027).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempanna et al. (US 20220217202) in view of She et al. (US 20230041976) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Li et al. (US 20230186196).
Regarding claim 15, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the weight for each metric of the plurality of metrics is assigned based on the scheduling scene (weights k1, k2, k3.. are assigned to hardware score, software score, etc. based on scheduling scene such as software fault score being the most important – see include, but are not limited to, Kempanna – paragraph 0046).
However, Kempanna in view of She does not explicitly disclose weight for each metric is adjustable.
Li discloses weight for each metric of plurality metrics is adjustable based on scheduling scene (weights applied to each factors or criteria used combination to provide the prediction action is adjustable based on scheduling scene of new content, type of content such as news event, time for scheduling the new content, location for scheduling new content, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, paragraphs 0034-0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempanna in view of She with the teaching of weight of each metric is adjustable based on scheduling scene as taught by Li in order to yield predictable result of improving performance of system 100/200 in orchestrating release of content, such as new content (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 16, Kempanna in view of She and Li discloses the method of Claim 15, further comprising:
determining a change in the scheduling scene for the content delivery network (change in the scheduling scene such as new content, predicted demand, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, Li: figures 3A-3B, paragraphs 0033-0035); and
based on the change in the scheduling scene, adjusting the weight for each metric of the plurality of metrics (based on the change in the scheduling scene such as new content, predicting demands of users, etc. adjusting the weight for each metric of the plurality of metrics based on new content, location, predicted demand, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, Li: figures 3A-3B, paragraphs 0033-0035).
Regarding claim 17, Kempanna in view of She and Li discloses the method of Claim 16, wherein the weight is gradually adjusted (weight is gradually/slowing adjust by calculation or based on new released content – see include, but are not limited to, Li: paragraphs 0034-0035).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempanna et al. (US 20220217202) in view of She et al. (US 20230041976) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of either Applegate et al. (US 20140359683) or Ellis et al. (US 20070157281).
Regarding claim 18, Kempanna in view of She discloses the method of Claim 1. Kempanna does not explicitly disclose recording the allocation of the content delivery event among the plurality of content delivery networks in a system state machine or a state management database for traceability .
Applegate or Ellis (hereinafter referred to as Applegate/Ellis) discloses recording the allocation of the content delivery event among the plurality of content delivery networks in a system state machine or a state management database for traceability (recording the allocation/location of the content delivery network device in a machine or a management database for tracking location of the link/path or network of content delivery event – see for example, Applegate: figures 14-16, paragraphs 0103, 0119 ; Ellis: figures 13, 15, 19, paragraphs 0131, 0171, 0173, 0175-0176, 0226).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempanna in view of She with the teaching of recording the allocation of the content delivery event amount the plurality of content delivery networks in a system state machine or state management database as taught by Applegate/Ellis in order to yield predictable result of tracking of location of assigned content and quickly provided content to user – see include, but are not limited to, Applegate: paragraphs 0028-0029; Ellis: paragraph 0175).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peterson et al. (US 9609374) discloses system and method for automatically obtaining cost-efficient access to a media content collection.
Thomas et al. (US 20170127104) discloses methods and systems for monitoring content subscription usage.
Bovenschulte et al. (US 20070136753) discloses cross-platform predictive popularity ratings for use in interactive television applications.
Van Dusen et al. (US 10219014) discloses systems and methods for bandwidth-limited video transport.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN SON P HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7295. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-6:00 pm.
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, ANH TUAN T. NGUYEN can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/AN SON P HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights