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 .
1. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-16, 18-19, and 21-22 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 8 is amended as filed on 12/03/2025.
Claims 21-22 are new as filed on 12/03/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-16, 18-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windrem et al. (Patent No. US 10,729,975 B1), hereinafter Windrem, in view of Saint-Hilaire et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2016/0285948 A1), hereinafter Saint, in view of Hockley (Patent No. US 11,088,860 B1), hereinafter Hockley and in further view of Altman et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2019/0312815 A1), hereinafter Altman.
2. With respect to claims 1 and 14, Windrem taught a method of improving performance in a virtual meeting session (column 6, lines 31-44, where the online multiplayer game is a virtual meeting under broadest reasonable interpretation. More specifically, a virtual meeting is a meeting between people that is taken place virtual. By definition, an MMORP is a virtual meeting of online participants), the method comprising: launching the virtual meeting session on a computing device of a first meeting participant (column 6, lines 31-44, where the game is hosted); establishing a first connection between the computing device and a virtual meeting server (column 17, lines 13-19); monitoring network latency conditions in the first network connection (column 10, lines 23-30); upon determining that the network latency conditions exceed a predetermined threshold, selecting a connection (column 18, lines 9-45, where the QoS metrics, based on latency, select the best connection. See also figures 2 and 4, that shows that the connection is re-established).
However, while Windrem taught establishing choosing the best connection based on latency (column 18, lines 9-45), Windrem did not explicitly state that the system established a connection between a first device and a proxy agent and establishing a second network connection between the computing device and the proxy agent; and establishing a third network connection between the virtual meeting server and the proxy agent to connect the computing device to the virtual meeting server through the proxy agent; wherein the virtual meeting server is a traversal using relay network address server selected from a plurality of TURN servers based on a second geographic location of a second meeting participant in the virtual meeting session, and selecting a proxy agent based on a first geographic location of the computing device, the first and second geographic locations being different. On the other hand, Saint did teach that the system established a connection between a first device and a proxy agent and establishing a second network connection between the computing device and the proxy agent (0463); and establishing a third network connection between the virtual meeting server and the proxy agent to connect the computing device to the virtual meeting server through the proxy agent (0463, where the turn servers can be seen in 0092, where the virtual meeting server was previously shown by Windrem: column 6, lines 31-44); and establishing a third network connection between the virtual meeting server and the proxy agent to connect the computing device to the virtual meeting server through the proxy agent; wherein the virtual meeting server is a traversal using relay network address server selected from a plurality of TURN servers based on a second geographic location of a second meeting participant in the virtual meeting session (0114, where the virtual meeting server was previously shown by Windrem: column 6, lines 31-44), and selecting a proxy agent based on a first geographic location of the computing device, the first and second geographic locations being different (0175). Both of the systems of Windrem and Saint are directed towards managing QoS of online sessions and therefore, it would have obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Windrem, to utilize reestablishing a connection via a proxy, as taught by Saint, in order to more efficiently maintain the desired QoS.
However, Windrem did not explicitly state that the online session was in a distributed workspace system via a virtual meeting application hosted by a virtual machine accessed through a digital workspace application, the virtual meeting application being configured to admit the first meeting participant to the virtual meeting session. On the other hand, Hockley did teach that the online session was in a distributed workspace system (8:50-57, where the virtual meeting room implicitly teaches the online session) via a virtual meeting application hosted by a virtual machine accessed through a digital workspace application, the virtual meeting application being configured to admit the first meeting participant to the virtual meeting session (1:59 to 2:9, where the conferencing nodes host the conferencing applications and are hosted distributed host servers that can be cloud servers, which could be a virtual machine in accordance with 11:8-23. Accordingly, the virtual digital workspace is implicitly taught as access to the virtual room requires a web browser, a software application, or the like. Further, allowing a user to access the virtual room is also implicitly taught in order for a virtual room to be populated. See also: 12:63 to 13:2, the user interface). Both of the systems of Windrem and Hockley are directed towards managing QoS of online sessions and therefore, it would have obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Windrem, to establishing a distributed workspace as a session, as taught by Hockley, in order to allow for a better online connection between users.
However, Windrem did not explicitly state establishing a third network connection between a virtual meeting server and a proxy agent to connect a computing device of at least one participant geographically distant from the group of participants to the virtual meeting server through the proxy agent; monitoring the network latency conditions in the network connection between the at least one geographically distant participant and the virtual meeting server; and selecting and adding a different proxy agent to improve the latency conditions in the network connection between the at least one geographically distant participant and the virtual meeting server, while maintaining an optimized selection of the virtual meeting server and negotiated communications based on the group of participants. On the other hand, Altman did teach establishing a third network connection between a virtual meeting server and a proxy agent to connect a computing device of at least one participant geographically distant from the group of participants to the virtual meeting server through the proxy agent (0024, where the geographically distant participant can be seen in the aggregated multiple link connection of 0018, and where the virtual meeting can be seen by the video conference of 0030); monitoring the network latency conditions in the network connection between the at least one geographically distant participant and the virtual meeting server (0024, where the real-time dynamic parameters include the monitored latency of 0075); and selecting and adding a different proxy agent to improve the latency conditions in the network connection between the at least one geographically distant participant and the virtual meeting server, while maintaining an optimized selection of the virtual meeting server and negotiated communications based on the group of participants (0024, where the added proxy is associated with the added communication link of 0018). Both of the systems of Windrem and Altman are directed towards virtual meetings and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Windrem, to utilize dynamic proxy selection based on latency, as taught by Altman, in order to better optimize the systems QoS.
3. With respect to claim 8, Windrem taught a computer system (column 1:34-39) comprising: a memory storing a plurality of instructions (column 17, lines 1-5); at least one network interface (column 17, lines 1-5, where the network interface is given); and at least one processor coupled in the memory and to the at least one network interface and configured execute the plurality of instructions (column 17, lines 1-5, where the network interface is given) to: launch a virtual meeting session (column 6, lines 31-44, where the online multiplayer game is a virtual meeting under broadest reasonable interpretation. More specifically, a virtual meeting is a meeting between people that is taken place virtual. By definition, an MMORP is a virtual meeting of online participants); establish a first network connection to a virtual meeting server via the at least one network interface (column 6, lines 31-44, where the online multiplayer game is a virtual meeting under broadest reasonable interpretation and the network interface is given).
However, Windrem did not explicitly state to monitor latency conditions in the first network connection, wherein to monitor the latency conditions, the at least one processor is configured to request information regarding the latency conditions from the virtual meeting server via an application programming interface; upon determination that the latency conditions exceed a predetermined threshold, select a proxy agent and establish a second network connection to the proxy agent; and reestablish connection to the virtual meeting server via the proxy agent. On the other hand, Saint did teach monitor latency conditions in the first network connection, wherein to monitor the latency conditions, the at least one processor is configured to request information regarding the latency conditions from the virtual meeting server via an application programming interface (0092); upon determination that the latency conditions exceed a predetermined threshold, select a proxy agent and establish a second network connection to the proxy agent (0108); and reestablish connection to the virtual meeting server via the proxy agent (0114, where the virtual meeting server was previously shown by Windrem: column 6, lines 31-44), and selecting a proxy agent based on a first geographic location of the computing device, the first and second geographic locations being different (0175, where the intermediate servers are proxies in accordance with 0463). Both of the systems of Windrem and Saint are directed towards managing QoS of online sessions and therefore, it would have obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Windrem, to utilize reestablishing a connection via a proxy, as taught by Saint, in order to more efficiently maintain the desired QoS.
However, Windrem did not explicitly state the virtual meeting using a virtual meeting application accessed through a digital workspace application executing on the computer system and wherein the virtual meeting session communicates video between meeting participants. On the other hand, Hockley did teach the virtual meeting using a virtual meeting application accessed through a digital workspace application executing on the computer system (8:50-57, where the virtual meeting room implicitly teaches the online session and 1:59 to 2:9, where the conferencing nodes host the conferencing applications and are hosted distributed host servers that can be cloud servers, which could be a virtual machine in accordance with 11:8-23. Accordingly, the virtual digital workspace is implicitly taught as access to the virtual room requires a web browser, a software application, or the like. Further, allowing a user to access the virtual room is also implicitly taught in order for a virtual room to be populated. See also: 12:63 to 13:2, the user interface) and wherein the virtual meeting session communicates video between meeting participants (8:48-57). Both of the systems of Windrem and Hockley are directed towards managing QoS of online sessions and therefore, it would have obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Windrem, to establishing a distributed workspace as a session, as taught by Hockley, in order to allow for a better online connection between users.
However, Windrem did not explicitly state reestablishing a connection while maintaining connection of the virtual meeting server and negotiated communications based on a group of participants. On the other hand, Altman did teach reestablishing a connection while maintaining connection of the virtual meeting server and negotiated communications based on a group of participants (0024, where the adjustments are in real-time and where the added proxy is associated with the added communication link of 0018). Both of the systems of Windrem and Altman are directed towards virtual meetings and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Windrem, to utilize dynamic proxy selection based on latency, as taught by Altman, in order to better optimize the systems QoS.
4. As for claims 2 and 15, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 14 (respectively). In addition, Windrem taught wherein monitoring latency conditions in the first network connection comprises requesting information regarding the latency conditions from the virtual meeting server via an application programming interface (column 18, lines 9-45).
5. As for claims 3, 10, and 16, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 14 (respectively). In addition, Windrem taught wherein monitoring latency conditions in the first network connection includes: transmitting a test message from the computing device over the first network; and monitoring a return time of the test message to the computing device (column 13, lines 4-16, where the pinging is the test message and the QoS metrics are determined).
6. As for claims 5, 11, and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 14 (respectively). In addition, Windrem taught wherein monitoring the network latency conditions is performed during the launching of the virtual meeting session on the computing device (column 18, lines 3-6, where the new match teaches the launching of the virtual session under broadest reasonable interpretation).
7. As for claims 6, 12, and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 14 (respectively). In addition, Windrem taught wherein monitoring the network latency conditions is performed periodically during the virtual meeting session (column 18, lines 3-6, the time intervals).
9. As for claim 13, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 8. In addition, Windrem taught wherein the processor is configured to select the proxy agent based on a geographic location of the computer system (column 10, lines 25-30).
10. As for claims 21-22, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 14 (respectively). In addition, Hockley taught wherein the virtual meeting session communicates video between meeting participants (8:48-57).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
11. The applicant argues on page 2 that “Windrem drops the server-based connection, specifically "to reduce the amount of computing resources" spent on hosted communication. Even when both connections exist, they're used as alternative paths - the system "selects the connection that provides better QoS characteristics" and can drop the other connection. If you then insert an additional "proxy agent" layer between endpoints and that communication processing server/TURN server, you are adding an extra hop and additional servers, and undermining Windrem's explicit goal of reducing server count and resource usage. Thus, Windrem teaches away from the claimed proxy agent, which would re-introduce the specific intermediary network infrastructure that Windrem seeks to avoid. The Office thus fails to make a prima facie rejection for at least this reason.”
However, Windrem is attempting to improve QoS by utilizing the best and most efficient connections available. While that may include removing intermediate networks, the system also recognizes that the intermediate network may be the best connection and would thus use proxies as well. More explicitly, Windrem claims that it will select proxied connections in 5:63 to 6:8.
12. The applicant argues on page 3 that “the point in Saint is to reduce complexity for low- power devices and embedded web servers; and measure end-to-end latency directly between the browser and the relay/TURN node. That is, Saint discusses the use of a TURN server as an intermediary relay as a drawback in the prior art. Para. [0091]. Saint thus teaches away from introducing a proxy agent as claimed”.
However, as above, assuming arguendo that Saint’s primary focus to make the most direct (un-proxied connection), Saint still teaches managing proxied connections in, at least, 0151-0154.
13. The applicant argues on page 4 that “Saint merely indicates that a relay server exists, and does not describe how the relay server is selected. Rather, Saint describes that relay servers are selected based on latency (para. [0092], [0108], [0113]), which is different from the claimed selection based on a geographic location of a second meeting participant”.
However, while Saint selects a server based on latency, said latency can be based on location (0122 & 0168). Furthermore, Saint also directly makes selections based on geographic location (0175). Thus, the claimed limitations are shown.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Hsu et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2013/0117461 A1), 0017, 0021, and 0028.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443