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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to Desai fails to teach or suggest “a message indicating that reducing a first type of Qos parameter is optional”.
However, Desai describes these features in e.g. ¶ 40 which discloses a message comprising an offer to reduce a QoS parameter (see also ¶ 41-48 and claim 2 of Desai).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues against the propriety of the rejections under 35 USC 101 on the basis that the recited computer environment precludes the application of the rejections because a mental process type grouping of abstract ideas is not applicable to computer implemented inventions. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the features in question are described as concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or on pen and paper, and applicant is merely claiming the concept performed 1) on a generic computer; or 2) in a computer environment; or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea (MPEP 2106304(a)(2) III C).
Applicant’s argues that the additional elements of the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant states the invention provides a response to a technical problem of network overload. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the practical application is not recited in the claims. There is no recitation addressing detected network overload in the claims, nor a recited solution to address network overload. Independent claims 2 and 9 are directed to “determining a condition” at a network component and transmitting a message. Transmitting a message does not reduce or address network overload. Independent claim 16 is directed to receiving a request and transmitting at some point in the future, a content request. Receiving a request and transmitting a content request in the future does not reduce network overload.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards nonstatutory subject matter.
The determining step of claim 2, “determining, by a computing device, a first condition at a network component” is directed to the abstract idea of mental processes, namely, data gathering or observation.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) include(s) additional elements such as “sending, to one or more first user devices, a message…”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements simply merely perform generic functions by executing the functions on a machine where the machine is used as a mere tool.
The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered alone and in combination do not add significantly more (i.e. do not at an inventive concept) to the exception. The remaining independent claims are addressed by similar rationale.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-7, 9, 12-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,351,193 to Raleigh in view of US 20180375856 to Chen in view of US 20210007014 to Desai.
Regarding claim 2,
Raleigh teaches a method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, a first condition at a network component that sends content based on content requests received from a plurality of user devices (col. 228:47-67, determination of network conditions, network usage, QoS policy enforcement)
wherein the content requests indicate a first type of Quality of Service (QoS) parameter (col. 74:60-67, user request indicating QoS parameter);
sending, to the one or more first user devices selected based on the first condition, a message comprising information indicating one or more first user devices to reduce the first type of QoS parameter indicated in the future requests for the content (col. 228:47-67, col. 229:1-55, transmission of notification regarding reduction; see also col. 74:60-67, col. 37:30-50, col. 231:60-60).
Raleigh fails to teach sending information indicating a proportion of devices to reduce. However, Chan teaches sending information indicating a proportion of devices to reduce (¶ 24, 30, 34, 56, sending instruction to reduce QoS for a proportion of user devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Chen. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Chen would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating traffic management and congestion control (Chen, ¶ 11).
Raleigh fails to teach that the message indicates that the reducing the first type of QoS parameter is optional. However, Desai teaches a message indicating that the reducing the first type of QoS parameter is optional (claim 2, ¶ 40-48, message sent to group of devices; indication of optional reduction of QoS parameter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Desai. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Desai would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating the efficient and optimal balancing of resources (Desai, ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 3,
Raleigh teaches:
permitting one or more second user devices, of the plurality of user devices and other than the one or more first user devices, to send future requests, for the content, that do not reduce the first type of QoS parameter (col. 228:47-67, col. 229:1-55, permitted devices).
Regarding claim 4,
Raleigh teaches:
wherein the information indicates a degree of reduction of a bit rate (col. 231:30-60, indication of degree of reduced bit rates; see also col. 37:30-50).
Regarding claim 5,
Raleigh teaches:
wherein the information indicates a degree of reduction of a content resolution (col. 231:35-60, available resolutions to satisfy network/QoS requirements; see col. 228:47-67, col. 229:1-55).
Regarding claim 6,
Raleigh teaches:
wherein the information indicates a change in a format of the content (col. 231:35-60, resolutions; see also col. 120:45-55).
Regarding claim 7,
Raleigh teaches:
wherein the information indicates a second network component that sends content based on the content requests received from a plurality of user devices (col. 227:1-25, messaging including indication of secondary network element to support service activity; see also col. 229:1-30, col. 232:25-35, col. 226:1-5)
Claims 9 and 16 are addressed by similar rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 12,
Raleigh teaches:
sending a plurality of different messages, each indicating: a different degree of requested reduction of the QoS parameter (col. 231:35-60; col. 228:47-67, col. 229:1-55, sending plurality of messages according to device level or subscription and QoS policy). Chen teaches: sending a plurality of different messages, each indicating: a different percentage of user devices (¶ 24, 30, 34, 56, sending instruction to reduce QoS for a percentage of user devices).Motivation to include Chen is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 13,
Raleigh teaches:
wherein the message further indicates a degree of reduction of the QoS parameter (¶ 34-36; see also ¶ 24, 30, and 56). Motivation to include Chen is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 14,
Raleigh teaches:
sending a second message to a second plurality of user devices, wherein the second message comprises an indication to force one or more of the second plurality of user devices to reduce the QoS parameter indicated in future requests for the content (col. 228:47-67, col. 229:1-55, col. 230:1-50).
Regarding claim 15,
Raleigh teaches:
wherein the first condition is an overload condition (col. 228:47-67, col. 229:1-55).
Regarding claim 17,
Raleigh teaches:
wherein the information allows the computing device to probabilistically determine whether to reduce the QoS parameter (col. 229:1-55).
Raleigh fails to teach but Chen teaches wherein the information includes a proportion (¶ 24, 30, 34, 56, sending instruction to reduce QoS for a percentage of user devices). Motivation to include Chen is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 19,
Raleigh teaches:
wherein the message is based on an overload in a network component that serves content requests from the plurality of devices (col. 228:47-67).
Regarding claim 21,
Raleigh teaches:
determining, based on the information and a service level associated with the computing device, to reduce QoS parameter (col. 228:47-67, determination of network conditions, network usage, QoS policy enforcement).
Claim 8, 10-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raleigh, Chen, and Desai in view of US 20110170410 to Zhao.
Regarding claim 8, 10,
Raleigh fails to teach but Zhao teaches:
wherein the message is added in a content packet previously requested by the plurality of user devices (¶ 97, 104-105, 113-114, marking of content data packets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Zhao. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Zhao would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating response actions to network congestion (Zhao, abstract).
Regarding claim 11, 20,
Raleigh fails to teach but Zhao teaches:
wherein the message is added in a video packet previously requested by the plurality of user devices (¶ 7, 24, 97, 104-105, 113-114). Motivation to include Zhao is the same as presented above.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights