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 .
Response to Arguments
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues that both inventions I and II relate to throughput as Invention I indicates “goodput” and invention II indicates “bottlenecks” which relate to throughput.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner asserts that two inventions may relate to throughput but be distinct. The first invention, Invention I, involves preset goodputs, and measuring user experience at each to determine a function relating goodput to user satisfaction. Invention II, on the other hand, detects bottlenecks in a simulated traffic environment, which may involve the use of throughput, but there is no indication of a function generated that maps throughput to user satisfaction. Further, Invention II resolves the bottleneck. There is no mention of bottleneck or resolving the bottleneck in Invention I for a simulated traffic pattern. Thus, one invention pertains to determining user satisfaction for goodput levels, and the other is for resolving bottlenecks. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these are two distinct goals achieved by two different inventions.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues that both inventions are classified in H04L and the Office has failed to provide evidence that the search would be a serious burden as the two claimed inventions Invention I and Invention II are both classified in “transmission of digital information.”
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “transmission of digital information” covers a broad range of distinct inventions, thus two inventions placed within this classification would still raise a restriction requirement as they may pertain to distinct sub-categories within H04L. Invention I pertains to links with preset goodputs, and mapping different goodputs to user satisfaction based on feedback. Invention II identifies and resolves bottlenecks without any steps related to throughput, user satisfaction, thus it is not an obvious variant of invention I. See updated restriction requirement below.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 19-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/21/2025. The election below is updated to reflect the arguments made by the Applicant.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18 drawn to a method and system for generating a function based on user satisfaction reports versus goodput for a communication system, classified in H04L41/5009.
II. Claims 19-20 drawn to a method for identifying a traffic pattern, increasing a load of the traffic in a simulation, and intervening to avoid a cascading bottleneck, classified in H04L43/08.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions I, II are directed to related processes and products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed are distinct because invention I does not claim any of the limitations related to invention II, has a different mode of operation, does not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants.
Invention I has the mode of operation / function of determining a goodput of a connection, receiving user satisfaction rating, and generating a function by interpolating plot points of satisfaction versus goodput. Invention II is a process for simulating a traffic pattern to measure load on a cell and intervening to avoid a cascade effect. These two inventions do not overlap in scope as Invention I is for visualizing a user experience based on goodput values. Invention II is for simulating load conditions and preventing congestion. Both are classified in H04L, however Examiner notes that H04L involves the broad field of “transmission of digital information” which covers a range of distinct subject matter. Invention I, for example, recites no limitations regarding simulated traffic pattern, bottlenecks, and taking steps to resolve the bottleneck.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classifications and would require a different filed of search with different search strategies and queries, e.g. one search would be directed to obtaining user experience information for connections using preset goodputs and generating a function. Another search strategy would be for determining congestion or bottlenecks in a network, and resolving the bottleneck. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these correspond to two distinct inventions with two distinct goals. Invention I seeks to choose proper goodputs to achieve user satisfaction without any regard to bottlenecks. Another simulates traffic and resolves bottlenecks without any regard to a preset goodput or generation of a function relating goodput and user experience.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the process/apparatus claims and the rejoined process/apparatus claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process/apparatus claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the process/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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, 3, 5-7, 10, 12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cioffi et al. (“Cioffi”) (US 20210314238 A1) in view of Kawano et al. (“Kawano”) (US 20240007691 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cioffi teaches:
A method of mapping goodput to user satisfaction on a network, comprising: providing, by at least one processor, users with a data connection having a pre- determined goodput for an average packet transaction of a given category of applications or a snippet of a transaction [¶0277, throughput for communication session (corresponding to claimed “snippet of a transaction”) predicted to derive an expected throughput (corresponding to “pre-determined goodput”) see ¶0104 throughput definition, “Throughput is the actual user data passed successfully per unit time” this matching Applicant’s cited definition of goodput and Wikipedia’s “useful information bits delivered by the network to a certain destination per unit of time” as Applicant cites the Wikipedia page for goodput, and the definition of throughput in the reference match this definition of goodput];
receiving, by the at least one processor [¶0364], user satisfaction ratings from test users after using one or more applications in the given category of applications using the data connection [Figure 3B ¶0078-80, system collects user feedback corresponding to user satisfaction ratings]; from the received user satisfaction ratings, generating, by the at least one processor, average user satisfaction versus goodput for the given category of applications and interpolating between data points to obtain a function correlating user satisfaction and goodput for the given category of applications [Figure 3B ¶0078-80, generate system i.e. function by linear regression (“interpolating”) to determine QoE (user satisfaction) based on inputs including throughput (versus goodput) for applications, Examiner noting linear regression typically involves fitting a line to points on a graph]; and generating, by the at least one processor, a set of functions correlating user satisfaction and goodput for each of a plurality of given categories of applications [¶0078-80, inputs include application type thus different functions generated for different application types or categories, see further application type in ¶0098, Figure 3B, train functions for different application types].
Cioffi teaches determining a function for application types but does not teach generating a graph.
Kawano teaches a similar function in which a graph is plotted showing relationship between average user satisfaction versus goodput for the given category of applications and interpolating between data points to obtain a function [Figure 5, ¶0035-40, interpolating between QoE/throughput points, wherein target QoE correspond to certain throughputs i.e. throughputs that as inputs satisfy the target QoE].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify generating a graph showing the relationship between goodput and user satisfaction as in Kawano who teaches ¶0007 this allows for determining the throughput to satisfy a user’s QoE.
Regarding claim 3, Cioffi-Kawano teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the network is a wireless network [Cioffi ¶0026, “Also, additional or fewer connections may be used. It shall also be noted that the terms “coupled,” “connected,” or “communicatively coupled” shall be understood to include direct connections, indirect connections through one or more intermediary devices, logical connections, and wireless connections.”], the method further comprising determining user satisfaction on the wireless network by measuring goodputs of network users and applications in use by the network users and, for each of the users, determining the user satisfaction correlated to the measured goodput and category of the in use application [Cioffi ¶0078 Figure 3B for a user, determine QoE by measuring QoS metrics, determine QoE or user satisfaction correlated to measured QoS which may be throughput ¶0104, ¶0277, and type of application corresponding to category ¶0098].
Regarding claim 5, Cioffi-Kawano teaches:
The method of claim 3, further comprising receiving location information from the network users and, for each network user, mapping the user satisfaction correlated to the measured goodput and category of in use application to a geographic location determined from the location information [Cioffi ¶0302-308, device profile enhances learning model for the QoE determination, based on device location for the user, thus QoE mapped to location of device corresponding to “geographic location”].
Regarding claim 6, Cioffi-Kawano teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of given categories of applications comprise messaging applications, voice applications, email applications, web browsing applications, video applications, and file transfer applications [Cioffi ¶0078 model for WFH applications, ¶0034 WFH applications described, “ Examples of WFH situations or activities include video-conferencing (“video”), document management, audio conference calls (voice), interactive document or project sharing among collaborators (“messaging” and “file transfer”), or other instances where an user is engaged in work-related activity using one or more network connections from the remote location.” ¶0038 indicates emails. ¶0153 indicates web applications].
Regarding claim 7, Cioffi-Kawano teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of given categories of applications comprise applications having the average packet transaction that is within a particular threshold [Examiner notes that the claim does not specify the particular threshold, thus any value may correspond to the particular threshold, and applications with a data rate as defined as QoS are considered to have packet transaction within some particular unspecified threshold, see ¶0134 of Cioffi “The term service profile is a subset of a full profile settings that comprises certain service-related parameters such as data rates and delay” profile pertaining to application, thus set parameters such as data rates indicates a “packet transaction” within some threshold].
Regarding claim 10, Cioffi teaches:
A system for mapping goodput to user satisfaction on a network, comprising: a memory storing computer-readable instructions; and at least one processor to execute the instructions [¶0364] to: provide users with a data connection having a pre- determined goodput for an average packet transaction of a given category of applications or a snippet of a transaction [¶0277, throughput for communication session (corresponding to claimed “snippet of a transaction”) predicted to derive an expected throughput (corresponding to “pre-determined goodput”) see ¶0104 throughput definition considered to correspond to goodput “Throughput is the actual user data passed successfully per unit time” this matching Applicant’s cited definition of goodput];
receive user satisfaction ratings from test users after using one or more applications in the given category of applications using the data connection [Figure 3B ¶0078-80, system collects user feedback corresponding to user satisfaction ratings]; from the received user satisfaction ratings, generate average user satisfaction versus goodput for the given category of applications and interpolating between data points to obtain a function correlating user satisfaction and goodput for the given category of applications [Figure 3B ¶0078-80, generate system i.e. function by linear regression (“interpolating”) to determine QoE (user satisfaction) based on inputs including throughput (versus goodput) for applications]; and generate a set of functions correlating user satisfaction and goodput for each of a plurality of given categories of applications [¶0078-80, inputs include application type thus different functions generated for different application types or categories, see further application type in ¶0098, Figure 3B, train functions for different application types].
Cioffi teaches determining a function for application types but does not teach generating a graph.
Kawano teaches a similar function in which a graph is plotted showing relationship between average user satisfaction versus goodput for the given category of applications and interpolating between data points to obtain a function [Figure 5, ¶0035-40, interpolating between QoE/throughput points].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify generating a graph showing the relationship between goodput and user satisfaction as in Kawano who teaches ¶0007 this allows for determining the throughput to satisfy a user’s QoE.
Regarding claim 12, Cioffi-Kawano teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the network is a wireless network [Cioffi ¶0026, “Also, additional or fewer connections may be used. It shall also be noted that the terms “coupled,” “connected,” or “communicatively coupled” shall be understood to include direct connections, indirect connections through one or more intermediary devices, logical connections, and wireless connections.”], the method further comprising determining user satisfaction on the wireless network by measuring goodputs of network users and applications in use by the network users and, for each of the users, determining the user satisfaction correlated to the measured goodput and category of the in use application [Cioffi ¶0078 Figure 3B for a user, determine QoE by measuring QoS metrics, determine QoE or user satisfaction correlated to measured QoS which may be throughput ¶0104, ¶0277, and type of application corresponding to category ¶0098].
Regarding claim 14, Cioffi-Kawano teaches:
The system of claim 12, further comprising receiving location information from the network users and, for each network user, mapping the user satisfaction correlated to the measured goodput and category of in use application to a geographic location determined from the location information [Cioffi ¶0302-308, device profile enhances learning model for the QoE determination, based on device location for the user, thus QoE mapped to location of device corresponding to “geographic location”].
Regarding claim 15, Cioffi-Kawano teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the plurality of given categories of applications comprise messaging applications, voice applications, email applications, web browsing applications, video applications, and file transfer applications [Cioffi ¶0078 model for WFH applications, ¶0034 WFH applications described, “ Examples of WFH situations or activities include video-conferencing (“video”), document management, audio conference calls (voice), interactive document or project sharing among collaborators (“messaging” and “file transfer”), or other instances where an user is engaged in work-related activity using one or more network connections from the remote location.” ¶0038 indicates emails. ¶0153 indicates web applications].
Regarding claim 16, Cioffi-Kawano teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the plurality of given categories of applications comprise applications having the average packet transaction that is within a particular threshold [Examiner notes that the claim does not specify the particular threshold, thus applications with a data rate as defined as QoS are considered to have packet transaction within some particular unspecified threshold, see Cioffi ¶0134 “The term service profile is a subset of a full profile settings that comprises certain service-related parameters such as data rates and delay” profile pertaining to application, thus set parameters such as data rates indicates a “packet transaction” within some threshold].
Claim(s) 2, 9, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cioffi et al. (“Cioffi”) (US 20210314238 A1) in view of Kawano et al. (“Kawano”) (US 20240007691 A1) and Stanwood et al. (“Stanwood”) (US 20120151540 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Cioffi-Kawano teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the pre-determined goodput comprises one goodput [Cioffi ¶0104 throughput definition considered to correspond to goodput “Throughput is the actual user data passed successfully per unit time” this matching Applicant’s cited definition of goodput].
Cioffi teaches goodput but not multiple pre-determined goodputs.
Stanwood teaches one of a plurality of different pre-determined goodputs [¶0077, multiple throughputs set for various services or connections, ¶0089 may have multiple values, and ¶0109, possible throughput levels for various services are determined considered pre-determined as this is before the bandwidth level is selected for the services for various throughput levels].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have multiple goodputs predetermined for various services as in Stanwood who teaches this allows for selecting different throughputs for different QoS connections requiring differing levels of throughput.
Regarding claim 9, Cioffi-Kawano teaches:
The method of claim 1.
Cioffi teaches user feedback but not MOS.
Stanwood teaches a similar method for determining user satisfaction, further comprising evaluating each application in the given category of applications with different goodputs and User Satisfaction (US) gauged through a MOS (Mean Opinion Score) [¶0109, MOS determined for various services (“each application”) to gauge user satisfaction].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the user satisfaction by measuring a MOS. Cioffi teaches measuring QoE and it would have been obvious to implement a score using MOS as in Stanwood who teaches ¶0109 this is an example of subjective criteria and allows for selecting target bandwidth levels for a possible throughput.
Regarding claim 11, Cioffi-Kawano teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the pre-determined goodput comprises one goodput [Cioffi ¶0104 throughput definition considered to correspond to goodput “Throughput is the actual user data passed successfully per unit time” this matching Applicant’s cited definition of goodput].
Cioffi teaches goodput but not multiple pre-determined goodputs.
Stanwood teaches one of a plurality of different pre-determined goodputs [¶0077, multiple throughputs set for various services or connections, ¶0089 may have multiple values, and ¶0109, possible throughput levels for various services are determined considered pre-determined as this is before the bandwidth level is selected for the services for various throughput levels].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have multiple goodputs predetermined for various services as in Stanwood who teaches this allows for selecting different throughputs for different QoS connections requiring differing levels of throughput.
Regarding claim 18 Cioffi-Kawano teaches:
The system of claim 10.
Cioffi teaches user feedback but not MOS.
Stanwood teaches a similar method for determining user satisfaction, further comprising evaluating each application in the given category of applications with different goodputs and User Satisfaction (US) gauged through a MOS (Mean Opinion Score) [¶0109, MOS determined for various services (“each application”) to gauge user satisfaction].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the user satisfaction by measuring a MOS. Cioffi teaches measuring QoE and it would have been obvious to implement a score using MOS as in Stanwood who teaches ¶0109 this is an example of subjective criteria and allows for selecting target bandwidth levels for a possible throughput.
Claim(s) 8, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cioffi et al. (“Cioffi”) (US 20210314238 A1) in view of Kawano et al. (“Kawano”) (US 20240007691 A1) and Williams et al. (“Williams”) (US 20140092741 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Cioffi-Kawano teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the goodput comprises an amount of data transferred over a period from a start of a transmission over a period of time [Cioffi, “ [0104] Throughput is the actual user data passed successfully per unit time”].
Cioffi teaches measuring data over a unit of time but not related to an ACK.
Williams teaches goodput as a measure of amount of data transferred from a start of a transmission until a reception of an ACK [¶0061, rate of data transferred and acknowledged].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the goodput as the measure of data per ACK as in Williams who teaches this allows for choosing an appropriate tuning parameter to modify a connection ¶0061.
Regarding claim 17, Cioffi-Kawano teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the goodput comprises an amount of data transferred over a period from a start of a transmission over a period of time [Cioffi, “ [0104] Throughput is the actual user data passed successfully per unit time”].
Cioffi teaches measuring data over a unit of time but not related to an ACK.
Williams teaches goodput as a measure of amount of data transferred from a start of a transmission until a reception of an ACK [¶0061, rate of data transferred and acknowledged].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the goodput as the measure of data per ACK as in Williams who teaches this allows for choosing an appropriate tuning parameter to modify a connection ¶0061.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 13 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. US 20230103218 A1 – Figure 1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at 571-272-3905. 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.
/JAY L VOGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478