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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 – 5, 11 – 12, 14 – 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talvensaari et al. US 20190028740 A1, hereinafter Talvensaari in view of Liskov et al. US 8527639 B1 with publication date 2013-09-03, hereinafter Liskov.
Regarding claim 1, Talvensaari teaches a method comprising:
(Talvensaari: Summary, Fig. 1-2 and para. [0082 & 0085 & 0073 & 0088-0089] software programs executable by a computer system. Further, implementations can include distributed processing, component/object distributed processing, and/or parallel processing)
obtaining, by a device (Talvensaari: Fig. 1 destination device 150), probe results (Talvensaari: Fig. 1 second PD 111 (corresponds to claim limitation “probe results”) and para. [0029] media manager 126 generates the second PD 111 in response to receiving the request 103 from the destination device 150 and determining that the media stream 115 is available for transmission) generated by probing (Talvensaari: Fig. 1 103 request and para. [0029]), by a first node (Talvensaari: para. [0029] and Fig. 1 server 120) in a network (Talvensaari: para. [0029] and Fig. 1 network 160), a plurality of one or more anchor entities (content sources) in the network from a first node in the network; (Talvensaari: Fig. 1 second PD 111 and Para. [0033] rules engine 122 is configured to identify a content source (e.g., the server 120, the content server 180, the second destination device 190, the third destination device 192, or the cloud service 170) of the media stream 115 in response to determining that the second PD 111 indicates that the media stream 115 is available for transmission from the content source to the destination device 150)
generating (Talvensaari: para. [0033] rules engine 122 is configured to identify one or more content sources that have the media stream 115 available for transmission. For example, the rules engine 122 is configured to identify a content source (e.g., the server 120, the content server 180, the second destination device 190, the third destination device 192, or the cloud service 170) of the media stream 115 in response to determining that the second PD 111 indicates that the media stream 115 is available for transmission from the content source to the destination device 150. Para. [0012] the rules engine is included in the destination device, the server provides the second performance data to the destination device and the destination device designates the selected content source. The rules engine selects the content source or the server based on a comparison of network conditions detected at the server and network conditions detected at the content source), by the device (Talvensaari: para. [0033] rules engine 122 of destination device 120), a location identifier for the one or more anchor entities (content sources), wherein the location identifier is of the probe results; (Talvensaari: para. [0044] second PD 111 indicates the second value of the second performance metric associated with the server 120 and the third value of the second performance metric associated with the content source (e.g., the content server 180, the cloud service 170, the second destination device 190, or the third destination device 192 of FIG. 1). For example, the second PD 111 may indicate a server geographic distance (corresponds to claim limitation “location identifier”) and a content source geographic distance (corresponds to claim limitation “location identifier”), a server network distance and a content source network distance)
selecting, by the device, a configuration associated with the first node for use by a second node in the network, based on a difference between the location identifier for the first node and a location identifier for the second node; (Talvensaari: para. [0040 & 0007 & 0034] rules engine 122 may select a geographically closer source (e.g., the content server 180) when the destination device 150 is experiencing high packet loss. The destination device 150 may experience lower packet loss when receiving the media stream 115 from a geographically closer source (e.g., the content server 180)) and
causing, by the device, the configuration to be deployed to the second node. (Talvensaari: para. [0010 & 0033-0034] rules engine of the destination device is configured to designate the server or the content source as the selected content source. The media player is configured to send a second request for the media stream to the selected content source, and to receive the media stream from the selected content source)
It is noted that Talvensaari does not explicitly disclose: generating, by the device, a location identifier for the first node that represents its location in the network relative to the one or more anchor entities, wherein the location identifier is computed as a function of the probe results obtained from the one or more anchor entities in response to the probing by the first node.
However, Liskov from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: generating, by the device(routing server), a location identifier for the first node (DNS proxies) that represents its location in the network relative to the one or more anchor entities (content servers), wherein the location identifier is computed as a function of the probe results obtained from the one or more anchor entities in response to the probing by the first node
(Liskov: col. 4 lines 9-38 For known DNS proxies, the tables contain information about the distances from content servers to the DNS proxy. The information used to build the tables for known DNS proxies is collected by the system in the background. This information is obtained by having the routing servers ask content servers to communicate with DNS proxies to determine their "distance" from the DNS proxies. This activity is called "probing". Only a subset of content servers, called "leaders", may be asked to do probing. The information gathered by the content servers is sent back to the routing servers, where it is integrated into the tables. The tables are then sorted by increasing distance, or other suitable metric, so that the closest content server appears first in the table. Col. 2 lines 33-57 tables contain information about the “distances” between content servers and DNS proxies, where “distance” can mean the time taken for content servers to communicate with the proxies, or other kinds of network measurements (corresponds to claim limitation “location identifier is computed as a function of the probe results”). Col. 5 lines 56-63 and col. 8 lines 45-59 and Fig. 1 step A4, the DNS proxy probes one of the content servers 140 listed in the vector of candidate content servers returned by the routing server 110. In step A5, the probed candidate content server 140 responds to the probe, and col. 6 lines 25-39). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Liskov in the method of Talvensaari. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for providing adjustments to changing conditions in the CDN are automatic, externally-provided information can be incorporated to prime and improve construction of content server tables, general metrics can be employed to determine what content servers are good for particular clients, and scalable from small networks to very large networks (Liskov: col. 2 line 58-col. 3 line 24).
Regarding claim 2, Talvensaari and Liskov teach the method as in claim 1, wherein the plurality of one or more anchor entities comprises one or more of:
(Talvensaari: para. [0033] rules engine 122 is configured to identify one or more content sources that have the media stream 115 available for transmission. For example, the rules engine 122 is configured to identify a content source (corresponds to claim limitation “anchor entities”) (e.g., the server 120, the content server 180, the second destination device 190, the third destination device 192, or the cloud service 170))
a particular application server, (Talvensaari: para. [0033] rules engine 122 is configured to identify one or more content sources that have the media stream 115 available for transmission. For example, the rules engine 122 is configured to identify a content source (e.g., the server 120(corresponds to claim limitation “a particular application server”), the content server 180, the second destination device 190, the third destination device 192, or the cloud service 170) of the media stream 115) a particular router, (Talvensaari: para. [0006] router) a particular Domain Name System (DNS) server, or a particular Content Delivery Network (CDN) server. (Talvensaari: para. [0019 & 0018 & 0075] CDN network includes one or more servers, devices, or a combination thereof, configured to provide media content)
Regarding claim 4, Talvensaari and Liskov teach the method as in claim 1, wherein the location identifier for the first node and the location identifier for the second node are associated with a particular online application.
(Talvensaari: para. [0003] multimedia content that is available via the source device may also be available for streaming or downloading via one or more additional content sources. Thus, the same multimedia content may be available via numerous content sources for streaming or downloading to a destination device.)
Regarding claim 5, Talvensaari and Liskov teach the method as in claim 1, Talvensaari does not teaches,
Liskov from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: wherein the location identifier for the second node (DNS proxies) is generated based on probe results generated, by probing the plurality of one or more anchor entities in the network, from the second node in the network. (Liskov: col. 4 lines 9-38 For known DNS proxies, the tables contain information about the distances from content servers to the DNS proxy. The information used to build the tables for known DNS proxies is collected by the system in the background. This information is obtained by having the routing servers ask content servers to communicate with DNS proxies to determine their "distance" from the DNS proxies. This activity is called "probing". Only a subset of content servers, called "leaders", may be asked to do probing. The information gathered by the content servers is sent back to the routing servers, where it is integrated into the tables. The tables are then sorted by increasing distance, or other suitable metric, so that the closest content server appears first in the table. Col. 2 lines 33-57 tables contain information about the “distances” between content servers and DNS proxies, where “distance” can mean the time taken for content servers to communicate with the proxies, or other kinds of network measurements. Col. 5 lines 56-63 and col. 8 lines 45-59 and Fig. 1 step A4, the DNS proxy probes one of the content servers 140 listed in the vector of candidate content servers returned by the routing server 110. In step A5, the probed candidate content server 140 responds to the probe, and col. 6 lines 25-39). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Liskov in the method of Talvensaari. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for providing adjustments to changing conditions in the CDN are automatic, externally-provided information can be incorporated to prime and improve construction of content server tables, general metrics can be employed to determine what content servers are good for particular clients, and scalable from small networks to very large networks (Liskov: col. 2 line 58-col. 3 line 24).
Regarding claims 11 – 12 and 14 –15, Talvensaari and Liskov teach an apparatus, comprising: one or more network interfaces to communicate with a network; a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes; and a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor, (Talvensaari: Summary, Fig. 1-2 and para. [0082 & 0085 & 0073 & 0088-0089] software programs executable by a computer system. Further, implementations can include distributed processing, component/object distributed processing, and/or parallel processing):
and Talvensaari and Liskov teach all the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 5, and therefore apparatus claims 11 – 12 and 14 –15 are rejected using the same rationales.
Regarding claim 20, Talvensaari and Liskov teach a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing program instructions that cause a device to execute a process comprising (Talvensaari: Summary, Fig. 1-2 and para. [0082 & 0085 & 0073 & 0088-0089] software programs executable by a computer system. Further, implementations can include distributed processing, component/object distributed processing, and/or parallel processing): and Talvensaari and Liskov teach all the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and therefore apparatus claim 20 is rejected using the same rationales.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talvensaari and Liskov as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Burbridge et al. WO 2017060117 A1, hereinafter Burbridge.
Regarding claim 3, Talvensaari and Liskov teach the method as in claim 1, Talvensaari and Liskov do not explicitly teach: wherein the one or more anchor entities are selected from in the a plurality of entities are selected probed by the first node, based in part on their availability on the network and based in part on whether they are configured to respond to probes.
However, Burbridge from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the one or more anchor entities are selected from a plurality of entities probed by the first node, based in part on their availability on the network and based in part on whether they are configured to respond to probes. (Burbridge: spec page 7 paragraph 5 ”network nodes may be configured to respond to receipt of one or more probe test-messages from another of the network nodes by sending one or more probe test-messages,”; the network nodes that are configured to respond the probe test messages are also available in order to send the response) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Talvensaari and Liskov with the teachings of Burbridge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because obtaining a probe response message back, shows that the node is reachable and would allow for the latency to be measured (Burbridge: Spec page 1 last paragraph, page 2 first paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Talvensaari and Liskov teach the method as in claim 1, wherein the plurality of one or more anchor entities are probed by sending probes to the plurality of one or more anchor entities comprising at least one of: Domain Name System (DNS) probes (Liskov: col. 8 lines 45-59 step A4 of Fig. 1 DNS proxy probes one of the content servers 140 listed in the vector of candidate content servers returned by the routing server 110)
Talvensaari and Liskov do not explicitly teach: Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) probes, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) probes, , Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) probes, or speedtest probes.
However, Burbridge from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the plurality of one or more anchor entities are probed by sending probes to the plurality of one or more anchor entities comprising at least one of: Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) probes, (Burbridge: Spec page 8 paragraph 3, ”Ping reflects special ICMP probes to a network node back to the sender in order to test the round-trip-time” ICMP probes) Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) probes, Domain Name System (DNS) probes, Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) probes, or speedtest probes. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Talvensaari and Liskov with the teachings of Burbridge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of ICMP probes allows for the ability to test basic network connectivity through simple implementation and quick response time.
Regarding claims 13 and 16, Talvensaari, Liskov and Burbridge teach all the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 3 and 6, and therefore apparatus claims 13 and 16 are rejected using the same rationales.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talvensaari and Liskov as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Boesjes (US 7924927 B1), hereinafter Boesjes.
Regarding claim 7, Talvensaari and Liskov teach the method as in claim 1, Talvensaari and Liskov do not explicitly teach: wherein the configuration comprises a predictive routing model associated with the first node, and wherein the second node uses its location identifier as input to the predictive routing model.
However, Boesjes from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the configuration comprises a predictive routing model associated with the first node, and wherein the second node uses its location identifier as input to the predictive routing model. (Boesjes: Col.6 lines 9-14 ”In some examples of wireless telecommunications networks, particularly wireless networks including mobile network nodes, it may be desirable to include geo-location data as part of the connectivity data, along with wireless node identification data, portal node identification data, and/or corresponding wireless network pathway data”; and 28-31 ”Geo-location data may be updated, at intervals appropriate for the mobility of the network nodes, and geo-location data may be archived and analyzed for predictive routing,”; the predictive routing uses geo-location data (location identifier) from the mobile network nodes as input) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Talvensaari and Liskov with the teachings of Boesjes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of predictive routing would allow for enhanced speed and reliability of data transmission (Boesjes: Col.6 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 17, Talvensaari, Liskov and Boesjes teach all the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 7, and therefore apparatus claim 17 is are rejected using the same rationales.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talvensaari and Liskov as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Mccormick et al. (US 20220360518 A1), hereinafter Mccormick.
Regarding claim 8, Talvensaari and Liskov teach the method as in claim 1, Talvensaari and Liskov do not explicitly teach: wherein the difference between the location identifier for the first node and the location identifier for the second node is computed using a neural network.
However, Mccormick from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the difference between the location identifier for the first node and the location identifier for the second node is computed using a neural network. (Mccormick: [0096] “The training includes providing feedback to the machine learning agent. The feedback is based at least in part on the distance metric (location identifier) … machine learning agent may use a neural network”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Talvensaari and Liskov with the teachings of implementing a neural network of Mccormick. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a neural network can be used as an accelerator when determining the network configuration which would allow for a faster and more efficient process (Mccormick: [0090]).
Regarding claim 18, Talvensaari, Liskov and Mccormick teach all the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 8, and therefore apparatus claim 18 is are rejected using the same rationales.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talvensaari and Liskov as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Dobrowski et al. (WO 2007082011 A2), hereinafter Dobrowski.
Regarding claim 9, Talvensaari and Liskov teach the method as in claim 1, Talvensaari and Liskov do not explicitly teach: further comprising: providing, by the device, a map visualization for display that is based in part on the location identifier for the first node and the location identifier for the second node.
However, Dobrowski from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: further comprising: providing, by the device, a map visualization for display that is based in part on the location identifier for the first node and the location identifier for the second node. (Dobrowski: Spec page 7 lines 18-30 ”Using positional information indicating the location of each node (step 42) and performance information gathered from each node (step 44), a visual representation of the wireless network is generated (step 46) … The generation of a visual representation of the network makes use of positional information relating to the nodes in order to provide a physical layout of the topology of the wireless network,” Fig 2 steps 42 and 46). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Talvensaari and Liskov with the teachings of Dobrowski. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a visual network map would allow for a user to determine the routes messages can take in a network, predict potential problems, and make changes to improve network performance by allowing for more efficient and faster routing (Dobrowski: last sentence of abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Talvensaari, Liskov and Dobrowski teach all the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 9, and therefore apparatus claim 19 is are rejected using the same rationales.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please also see PTO-892.
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 WUTCHUNG CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-4064. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 4:00 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, Moo R Jeong can be reached at (571) 272-9617. 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.
/WUTCHUNG CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights