DETAILED ACTION
The amendment to Application Ser. No. 14/046,166 filed on May 14, 2026, has been entered. Claims 2-4, 6-14, 16, 19-22, 26, 28, 30, 32, 35-37 and 42-44 are cancelled. New Claims 45-47 are added. Claims 1, 5, 15, 17, 18, 23-25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 38-41 and 45-47 are pending and are examined.
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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
The arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 5, 15, 17, 18, 23-25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34 and 38-44 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered by the Examiner but are not persuasive.
Specifically, on pages 8-9 of the response filed May 14, 2026, Applicant argues, “Paragraph 35 of the Specification teaches that ‘mediation can generate a faux parameter.’ Specification, ¶35. Paragraph 19 of the Specification further teaches ‘mediation can comprise providing faux (e.g., artificial) parameter measurements to a service provider... in order to satisfy a required threshold service parameter.’ Id. at ¶19. Paragraph 19 of the Specification further teaches the ‘faux parameter can be processed by the service provider in order to assign a particular level of service to one or more devices.’ Id. Paragraph 35 of the Specification further teaches the faux parameter can indicate ‘low latency and packet loss.’ Id. at ¶¶35, 56, 69. Paragraph 35 further teaches this faux parameter permits ‘thresholds [to] be met using mediation rather than actual parameter detection.’ Id. at ¶35.
Thus, the Specification teaches the faux parameter may be generated and may be an artificial parameter. The Specification further teaches that this artificial parameter may be an artificial quality parameter, such as latency or packet loss. The Specification further teaches that the artificial parameter may indicate the threshold is satisfied.
Thus, the specification and drawings, as filed, fully support ‘generating at the gateway device, an artificial quality parameter that indicates the threshold is satisfied,’ as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claims 15 and 38. Claims 42-44 have been canceled herein without prejudice to or disclaimer of the subject matter therein. Therefore, the rejection of claims 42-44 is rendered moot. Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of this rejection of claims.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0019] and [0034]-[0036] of the specification disclose that the gateway can perform mediation, i.e., modifying the transmission of data to the user device such as by sending multiple copies of the same packet, to facilitate satisfaction of the threshold service parameter, i.e., an operational parameter such as packet loss, latency, or available bandwidth, required for a certain level of service. However, while paragraph [0019] of the specification discloses a faux parameter, i.e., an artificial quality parameter recited in Claim 1, can be provided to a computing device associated with a service provider in order to satisfy the required threshold service parameter and thereby cause the service provider to provide a level of service even if the user device does not satisfy the threshold requirement, as disclosed in paragraphs [0034]-[0036], [0054]-[0057] and [0068]-[0070] of the specification, the artificial quality parameter is a measurable parameter that has been artificially modified as the result of mediation, i.e., modified transmission of packets to the application client over the wireless segment of the network by retransmitting packets or transmitting multiple copies of packets, ACK retransmission, or by adding forward error correction/parity. This interpretation of “an artificial quality parameter” was upheld by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (see pages 8-10 of the PTAB decision rendered August 12, 2025). While the gateway may perform the mediation that results in the measurable parameter being artificially modified, the measurable parameter that has been artificially modified is not generated “at the gateway”. Therefore, there is insufficient written description support in the specification as filed for generating an artificial quality parameter “at the gateway device” as claimed.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), necessitated by the amendment, are set forth in this Office Action.
The arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 5, 15, 17, 18, 23-25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34 and 38-44 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered by the Examiner but are not persuasive.
Specifically, on page 10 of the response filed May 14, 2025, Applicant argues, “Schmid further teaches that the network entity ‘monitors ongoing flows and can modify both the uplink and downlink encoding rate using the existing in-band signaling mechanism’ and ‘can also modify both the ECN bits and CE bits at the IP packet level.’ Id. at p. 11,11.10-12. This confirms that the approach of Schmid requires modifying existing signaling and bits within packets, not ‘generating ... an artificial quality parameter’ ‘at the gateway device.’ Schmid teaches its mechanism is designed to ‘hide network congestion from terminals/clients in order to prevent uncontrolled source rate encoding changes by the terminals/clients.’ Id. at p. 10, 11. 14-16.. This hiding is accomplished by modifying existing congestion indications, not by generating new artificial parameters.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, MPEP § 2163.06 (I) states, in part:
“If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph - written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). The examiner should still consider the subject matter added to the claim in making rejections based on prior art since the new matter rejection may be overcome by applicant (emphasis added).”
While the specification does not provide adequate written description support for the limitation “generating, at the gateway device, an artificial quality parameter that indicates the threshold is satisfied” for the reasons indicated above, the features of the limitation are considered for the purposes of the prior art rejections made in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 28, 2025 as well as those made in this Office Action.
With that said, while the specification suggests that the artificially modified parameter can be a new parameter generated as a result of mediation, i.e., by modifying transmission of data from the gateway to the user device (e.g., at paragraphs [0034] and [0055] of the specification), this is not required by the language of the limitation. Stated differently, there is nothing recited in the limitation that precludes the artificial quality parameter being the result of the modification of an existing parameter, such as the ECN bits and CE bits that are modified by an intermediate network node disclosed in Schmid. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, necessitated by the amendment, are set forth in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1, 5, 15, 17, 18, 23-25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 38-41 and 45-47 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “generating, at the gateway device, an artificial quality parameter that indicates the threshold is satisfied” in lines 12-13.
Paragraph [0034] of the specification states, in part:
“In a further aspect, the network device 116 can be configured to modify transmission of data to the interface of the user device 102 to facilitate satisfaction of the threshold service parameter. As an example, a measurable parameter can be artificially modified in order to satisfy the threshold service parameter. As a further example, the artificially modified parameter can comprise one or more of an available bandwidth, packet loss, and latency. Such artificial modification can comprise retransmission of packets to lower the packet loss measurement (emphasis added).”
Additionally, paragraph [0035] of the specification states, in part:
“When a client device meets just the level 1 criteria (SD quality}, a network device, such as a gateway, can mediate to boost the possibilities of the client to satisfy level 2 criteria (HD quality). Mediation can comprise retransmission of packets, ACK retransmission, parity, and the like. Mediation can generate a faux parameter, such as low latency and packet loss. Accordingly, service criteria or thresholds can be met using mediation rather than actual parameter detection (emphasis added).”
Continuing, paragraph [0036] of the specification states, in part:
“To satisfy the IP telephony bandwidth requirement, it is enough to transmit a packet every 10 millisecond while the capability is 0.5 milliseconds. This means that there are 10ms / 0.5ms = 20 time slices available, one of which is used to transmit a single packet. The rest of the 19 time slices can be utilized to send multiple copies of the same packet to ensure the packet is delivered without loss. As copies of the same packet are transmitted more often than required, the low latency requirement can be achieved. Repetition is one method of utilizing excess data rate capability in the first network in order to correct for less than satisfactory reliability. Other methods include forward error correction techniques, such a parity check coding, interleaving, and automatic repeat request (emphasis added).”
As described by the specification, a faux parameter, i.e., the artificial quality parameter of Claim 1, is a measurable parameter that has been artificially modified as the result of mediation, i.e., modified transmission of packets to the application client over the wireless segment of the network by retransmitting packets or transmitting multiple copies of packets, ACK retransmission, or by adding forward error correction/parity. This interpretation of “an artificial quality parameter” was upheld by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (see pages 8-10 of the PTAB decision rendered August 12, 2025). While the gateway may perform the mediation that results in the measurable parameter being artificially modified, the measurable parameter that has been artificially modified is not generated “at the gateway”. Therefore, there is insufficient written description support in the specification as filed for generating an artificial quality parameter “at the gateway device” as claimed.
Dependent Claims 5, 23-25, 29, 33 and 45 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 1 in view of their dependence thereon.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 17, 18, 27, 31, 34 and 46 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 15 in view of their dependence thereon.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 38 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 39-41 and 47 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 38 in view of their dependence thereon.
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, 15, 17, 23, 29, 31, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May et al., Pub. No. GB 2423219 A, hereby “May”, in view of Schmid et al., Pub. No. WO 2013/014246 A1, hereby “Schmid”.
Regarding Claim 1, May discloses “A method (May page 1, lines 7-10: a method for providing a service between a server and an end client) comprising:
receiving, by an artificial application client of a gateway device, first data of a communications service associated with an application server, wherein the artificial application client is configured to emulate an application client of a user device (May figs. 1 and 2, page 14, lines 12-27 and page 15, line 26 through page 17, line 8: network proxy client 113 receives data of the streaming audio service from server 101, the network proxy client comprising service proxy client 201 which interfaces with the server);
sending, by an artificial application server of the gateway device, the first data to the application client of the user device, wherein the artificial application server is configured to emulate the application server (May figs. 1 and 2 and page 14, lines 12-27 and page 15, line 26 through page 17, line 8: network proxy client 113 further comprises a service proxy server 203 which interfaces with end client 103 to provide the end client with the streaming audio service received from server 101);
determining that a quality parameter representative of the sending of the first data by the artificial application server to the application client of the user device does not satisfy a threshold (May fig. 3, page 8, lines 1-12, page 18, line 19 through page 19, line 5 and page 20, line 4 through page 21 line 16: network proxy client 113 determines that a radio characteristic indication for the wireless link is above a given threshold, i.e., does not satisfy the threshold)”.
However, while May discloses that the server may be controlled by the network proxy client to provide the data at different encoding bit rates, i.e., different levels of quality, based on the radio characteristic indication for the wireless link (May page 6, lines 22-29 and page 21, line 24 through page 22, line 4), and further discloses that the network proxy client may modify signalling such as commands between the end client and the server (May page 16, lines 4-10), May does not explicitly disclose “generating, at the gateway device, an artificial quality parameter that indicates the threshold is satisfied; and
sending, by the artificial application client and to the application server and based on the quality parameter not satisfying the threshold, the artificial quality parameter, wherein sending the artificial quality parameter prevents the application server from modifying a quality of service of the communication service to the application client.”
In the same field of endeavor, Schmid discloses “generating, at the gateway device, an artificial quality parameter that indicates the threshold is satisfied (Schmid fig. 4; page 1, lines 28-31, page 4, lines 14-16; page 8, lines 11-15 and lines 29-34; page 11, lines 4-7 and page 14, lines 5-18: an intermediate network node, i.e., a gateway device, modifies a congestion indication (ECN) received from a first application endpoint, e.g., a UE, i.e., the gateway which prevents the other application endpoint, e.g., a video streaming server, from reducing the encoding rate of the video stream provided to the first application endpoint, i.e., the intermediate network node generates an artificial quality parameter that indicates congestion is satisfactory for the current encoding rate); and
sending, by the artificial application client and to the application server and based on the quality parameter not satisfying the threshold, the artificial quality parameter, wherein sending the artificial quality parameter prevents the application server from modifying a quality of service of the communication service to the application client (Schmid fig. 4; page 1, lines 28-31, page 4, lines 14-16; page 8, lines 11-15 and lines 29-34; page 11, lines 4-7 and page 14, lines 5-18: the intermediate network sends the modified congestion indication to the other application endpoint, which prevents the other application endpoint from reducing the encoding rate of the video stream provided to the first application endpoint).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of May to modify, by the network proxy client, the radio characteristic indication for the wireless link and to provide the modified radio characteristic indication to the server as taught by Schmid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine modifying the radio characteristic indication for the wireless link provided to the server to enable network/service side policy based control of the encoding rate used by the server (Schmid page 2, lines 24-26 and page 14, lines 26-27).
Regarding Claim 15, May discloses “A system (May page 1, lines 7-10: a system for providing a service between a server and an end client) comprising:
a user device comprising an application client, wherein the user device is associated with a first network that is external to a second network (May fig. 1 and page 13, line 26 through page 14, line 10: user equipment 109 comprising end client 103, the user equipment residing in a wireless network comprising wireless link 111);
an application server associated with the second network and configured to transmit data of a communications service (May fig. 1, page 13, lines 15-24 and page 14, lines 4-5: server 101 provides a streaming audio service and is connected to core network 105);
a gateway device communicatively coupled to the application server and the user device, the gateway device comprising an artificial application server configured to emulate the application server and further comprising an artificial application client configured to emulate the application client of the user device (May figs. 1 and 2 and page 14, lines 12-27 and page 15, line 26 through page 17, line 8: network proxy client 113 comprising a service proxy client 201 which interfaces with server 101 and service proxy server 203 which interfaces with end client 103 to provide the end client with the streaming audio service received from server 101), wherein the gateway device is configured to:
receive, by the artificial application client, first data of the communications service associated with the application server (May figs. 1 and 2, page 14, lines 12-27 and page 15, line 26 through page 17, line 8: service proxy client 201 of network proxy client 113 receives data of the streaming audio service from server 101);
send, by the artificial application server, the first data to the application client of the user device (May figs. 1 and 2, page 14, lines 12-27 and page 15, line 26 through page 17, line 8: service proxy server 203 of network proxy client 113 forwards the data of the streaming audio service to end client 103);
determine that a quality parameter representative of the sending of the first data by the artificial application server to the application client of the user device does not satisfy a threshold (May fig. 3, page 8, lines 1-12, page 18, line 19 through page 19, line 5 and page 20, line 4 through page 21 line 16: network proxy client 113 determines that a measurement of a characteristic of the wireless link is above a given threshold, i.e., does not satisfy the threshold)”.
However, while May discloses that the server may be controlled by the network proxy client to provide the data at different encoding bit rates, i.e., different levels of quality, based on the radio characteristic indication for the wireless link (May page 6, lines 22-29 and page 21, line 24 through page 22, line 4), and further discloses that the network proxy client may modify signalling such as commands between the end client and the server (May page 16, lines 4-10), May does not explicitly disclose “generate an artificial quality parameter that indicates the threshold is satisfied; and
send, by the artificial application client and to the application server and based on the quality parameter not satisfying the threshold, the artificial quality parameter, wherein sending the artificial quality parameter prevents the application server from modifying a quality of service of the communication service to the application client.”
In the same field of endeavor, Schmid discloses “generate an artificial quality parameter that indicates the threshold is satisfied (Schmid fig. 4; page 1, lines 28-31, page 4, lines 14-16; page 8, lines 11-15 and lines 29-34; page 11, lines 4-7 and page 14, lines 5-18: an intermediate network node, i.e., a gateway device, modifies a congestion indication (ECN) received from a first application endpoint, e.g., a UE, i.e., the gateway which prevents the other application endpoint, e.g., a video streaming server, from reducing the encoding rate of the video stream provided to the first application endpoint, i.e., the intermediate network node generates an artificial quality parameter that indicates congestion is satisfactory for the current encoding rate); and
send, by the artificial application client and to the application server and based on the quality parameter not satisfying the threshold, the artificial quality parameter, wherein sending the artificial quality parameter prevents the application server from modifying a quality of service of the communication service to the application client (Schmid fig. 4; page 1, lines 28-31, page 4, lines 14-16; page 8, lines 11-15 and lines 29-34; page 11, lines 4-7 and page 14, lines 5-18: the intermediate network sends the modified congestion indication to the other application endpoint, which prevents the other application endpoint from reducing the encoding rate of the video stream provided to the first application endpoint).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of May to modify, by the network proxy client, the radio characteristic indication for the wireless link and to provide the modified radio characteristic indication to the server as taught by Schmid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine modifying the radio characteristic indication for the wireless link provided to the server to enable network/service side policy based control of the encoding rate used by the server (Schmid page 2, lines 24-26 and page 14, lines 26-27).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of May and Schmid discloses all of the limitations of Claim 15.
Additionally, May discloses “wherein the first network comprises a local area network and the second network comprises a wide area network (May fig. 1, page 13, lines 10-31 and page 29, lines 19-26: wireless link 111 may be part of an 802.11 wireless network, i.e., a wireless LAN, and core network 105 may comprise parts of the Internet, i.e., a WAN).”
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of May and Schmid discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, May discloses “wherein the gateway device manages a wireless network (May fig. 1, page 13, lines 10-31, page 14, lines 23-27 and page 29, lines 19-26: network proxy client 113 is comprised within base station 107, which may be an access point for an 802.11 wireless LAN).”
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of May and Schmid discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, May discloses “wherein the threshold comprises a threshold for maintaining a first service level of the communication service, and wherein the quality parameter not satisfying the threshold indicates that subsequent data should be received at a second service level (May page 20, line 19 through page 22, line 4: “Hence, as a specific example, the server may comprise a first encoding setting for source encoding an audio signal at 128 kbps and a second encoding setting for source encoding the audio signal at 64 kbps. The network proxy client 113 may control the use of one or the other encoding setting in response to the buffer loading of the wireless buffer. Thus, when the buffer loading increases above the first threshold due to adverse propagation conditions, the network proxy client 113 switches the encoding rate to 64 kbps.”).”
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 31 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 29.
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of May and Schmid discloses all of the limitations of Claim 29.
Additionally, May discloses “wherein the second service level is a lower quality level than the first service level (May page 20, line 19 through page 22, line 4: “Hence, as a specific example, the server may comprise a first encoding setting for source encoding an audio signal at 128 kbps and a second encoding setting for source encoding the audio signal at 64 kbps. The network proxy client 113 may control the use of one or the other encoding setting in response to the buffer loading of the wireless buffer. Thus, when the buffer loading increases above the first threshold due to adverse propagation conditions, the network proxy client 113 switches the encoding rate to 64 kbps.”).”
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 34 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 33.
Claims 5, 18 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of May and Schmid in view of Bugenhagen, Pub. No. US 2008/0095173 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of May and Schmid discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while May discloses the radio characteristic for the wireless link, i.e., a quality parameter representative of sending of the first data by the artificial application server to the application client of the user device, may include one or more a throughput rate, error rate, path loss, or channel estimate (May page 18, line 19 through page 19, line 5 and page 20, line 4 through page 21 line 16), the combination of May and Schmid does not explicitly disclose “wherein the quality parameter comprises one or more of packet loss, latency, or available bandwidth.”
In the same field of endeavor, Bugenhagen discloses “wherein the quality parameter comprises one or more of packet loss, latency, or available bandwidth (Bugenhagen paragraphs 25, 37 and 60-61: the performance data compared to one or more thresholds may include available bandwidth, latency and packet loss).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of May, as modified by Schmid, to utilize one or more of packet loss, latency or available bandwidth as radio characteristic indication for the wireless link as taught by Bugenhagen because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (measurements of packet loss, latency and/or available bandwidth of the wireless link) for another (measurements of throughput, error rate, path loss and/or channel estimate of the wireless link) to obtain predictable and desirable results (reporting quality characteristics of the wireless link). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 5.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 38 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
However, while May discloses a method for providing a service between a server and an end client (May page 1, lines 7-10), the combination of May and Schmid does not explicitly disclose “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to” perform the method.
In the same field of endeavor, Bugenhagen discloses “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to” perform a method (Bugenhagen fig. 9 and paragraphs 43-45: storage system 940 storing software 950 that is executable by processing system 930 to perform a method).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to implement the method of May, as modified by Schmid, as computer-readable instructions embodied on a computer-readable storage medium as taught by Bugenhagen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine computer-readable instructions embodied on a computer-readable storage medium to enable implementation of the method by a general purpose computer system (Bugenhagen paragraph 43).
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 39 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 29.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 40 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 33.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 41 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 5.
Claims 24, 25, 27, 45 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of May and Schmid and in view of Thielman et al., Pub. No. US 2008/0267069 A1, hereby “Thielman”.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of May and Schmid discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while May discloses that the streaming service provided by the server may be an IP-based streaming video service (May page 13, lines 10-24), and Schmid suggests that the media stream may be part of an interactive video session (Schmid page 14, lines 7-13), the combination of May and Schmid does not explicitly disclose “wherein the communications service is an Internet Protocol-based video communications service.”
In the same field of endeavor, Thielman discloses “wherein the communications service is an Internet Protocol-based video communications service (Thielman paragraphs 11 and 18-25: the video data is provided as part of a video conference application)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of May, as modified by Schmid, to provide a video conferencing application using the server for consumption by the user equipment as taught by Thielman because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a video conferencing application) for another (a streaming video application) to obtain predictable results (a server providing a video conferencing application for consumption by a user device). See KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of May and Schmid discloses all of the limitations of Claim 29.
However, while May discloses that the application data may comprise data of a streaming service, such as a streaming video and/or audio service (May page 10, lines 11-18), and further discloses that the server may be controlled by the network proxy client to provide the data at different encoding bit rates based on the measurement of the characteristic of the wireless link (May page 21, line 24 through page 22, line 4), the combination of May and Schmid does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first service level comprises a high definition service level, and wherein the second service level comprises a standard definition service level.”
In the same field of endeavor, Thielman discloses “wherein the first service level comprises a high definition service level, and wherein the second service level comprises a standard definition service level (Thielman paragraphs 22-34: the performance level of the video being output may comprise HD resolution video, and the measured latency of the network may satisfy the latency threshold for the performance level comprising SD resolution video).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of May, as modified by Schmid, to provide the video service at a high definition service level or a standard definition service level based on the performance data of the network connection as taught by Thielman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine providing the video service at a high definition service level or a standard definition service level based on the performance data of the network connection to offer the best possible video quality without introducing noticeable delay which detracts from the user experience (Thielman paragraphs 12 and 34-35).
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 27 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 45, the combination of May and Schmid discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while May discloses the radio characteristic for the wireless link, i.e., a quality parameter representative of sending of the first data by the artificial application server to the application client of the user device, may include one or more a throughput rate, error rate, path loss, or channel estimate (May page 18, line 19 through page 19, line 5 and page 20, line 4 through page 21 line 16), and Schmid discloses modifying, by an intermediate network node, a congestion indication received from a first application endpoint and provided to an another application endpoint to prevent the other application endpoint from reducing the encoding rate of the video stream provided to the first application endpoint (Schmid page 1, lines 28-31, page 4, lines 14-16; page 8, lines 11-15 and lines 29-34; page 11, lines 4-7 and page 14, lines 5-18), the combination of May and Schmid does not explicitly disclose “wherein the artificial quality parameter indicates one of a packet loss threshold is satisfied or a latency threshold is satisfied.”
In the same field of endeavor, Thielman discloses “wherein the... quality parameter indicates one of a packet loss threshold is satisfied or a latency threshold is satisfied (Thielman fig. 3 and paragraphs 22-34: the measured latency of the network indicates whether a latency threshold associated with providing a particular video quality is satisfied).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of May, as modified by Schmid, to provide a modified latency measurement that satisfies a threshold latency requirement for a particular service level as taught by Thielman because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a congestion indication) for another (a latency measurement) to obtain predictable and desirable results (maintaining the provided video quality at the current level). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claims 46 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 45.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of May, Schmid and Bugenhagen in view of Thielman.
Regarding Claim 47, the combination of May, Schmid and Bugenhagen discloses all of the limitations of Claim 38.
However, while May discloses the radio characteristic for the wireless link, i.e., a quality parameter representative of sending of the first data by the artificial application server to the application client of the user device, may include one or more a throughput rate, error rate, path loss, or channel estimate (May page 18, line 19 through page 19, line 5 and page 20, line 4 through page 21 line 16), and Schmid discloses modifying, by an intermediate network node, a congestion indication received from a first application endpoint and provided to an another application endpoint to prevent the other application endpoint from reducing the encoding rate of the video stream provided to the first application endpoint (Schmid page 1, lines 28-31, page 4, lines 14-16; page 8, lines 11-15 and lines 29-34; page 11, lines 4-7 and page 14, lines 5-18), the combination of May, Schmid and Bugenhagen does not explicitly disclose “wherein the artificial quality parameter indicates one of a packet loss threshold is satisfied or a latency threshold is satisfied.”
In the same field of endeavor, Thielman discloses “wherein the... quality parameter indicates one of a packet loss threshold is satisfied or a latency threshold is satisfied (Thielman fig. 3 and paragraphs 22-34: the measured latency of the network indicates whether a latency threshold associated with providing a particular video quality is satisfied).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of May, as modified by Schmid and Bugenhagen, to provide a modified latency measurement that satisfies a threshold latency requirement for a particular service level as taught by Thielman because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a congestion indication) for another (a latency measurement) to obtain predictable and desirable results (maintaining the provided video quality at the current level). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pirhonen et al., Pub. No. US 2004/0028062 A1, discloses a method for controlling a streaming service wherein a service gateway function residing in the network modifies a parameter within an RTSP message received from a subscriber device before relaying to the server; and
Wollmershauser et al., Pub. No. US 2013/0272316 A1, discloses a method for allocating processing and transmitting resources of a residential gateway wherein the residential gateway modifies a transmission parameter of a communication received from a particular network device when the transmission parameter does not satisfy a bandwidth threshold.
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 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 WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights