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 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (hereinafter, “Wang”), in view of Jia et al. (hereinafter, “Jia”), US 12,107,739 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, by a device, network telemetry and environmental telemetry associated with a physical environment (i.e., receive a plurality of signal strength and location data from multiple mobile devices, page 3 paragraph [0032]);
forecasting, by the device and based on the network telemetry and environmental telemetry, future values of the network telemetry and environmental telemetry (i.e., Wang, in page 4 paragraph [0037], forecast map that shows signal strength, based on signal quality history data and also useful data points from users in particular locations. Wang, in page 4 paragraph [0037], also discloses signal strength…measured in decibels (dB) as radio waves with a ranges of -50 to -120 for the cellular devices); and
providing, by the device, a recommendation to a user interface that recommends a user of the online application navigate to a particular location from among the different locations to access the online application at a future point in time (i.e., recommend on when and where to have an important short duration call, page 4 paragraph [0041]).
Wang does not explicitly teach predicting, based on the future values, quality of experience metrics for an online application for different locations within the physical environment; and providing, based on the quality of experience metric, a recommendation to a user interface.
Jia teaches predicting, by the device and based on the future values, quality of experience metrics for an online application for different locations within the physical environment (i.e., the prediction component 302 can provide information indicative of expected levels at various locations within the communication network…the prediction component can make prediction based on expected future information, col. 11 lines 17-22); and providing, based on the quality of experience metric, a recommendation to a user interface (i.e., a navigation component 306 can associate QoS to one or more locations based on the prediction received from the prediction component 302…output suggestions as to where the second device 104 should be moved, col. 11 lines 31-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wang to predict, based on the future values, quality of experience metrics for an online application for different locations within the physical environment; and provide, based on the quality of experience metric, a recommendation to a user, as taught by Jia. One would be motivated to do so to improve quality of service (i.e., Jia, col. 10 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the method as in claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly teach the environment telemetry comprises at least one of an ambient noise or an occupancy level.
Jia teaches the environment telemetry comprises at least one of an ambient noise or an occupancy level (i.e., crowded zones for usage, col. 19 lines 41-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modify the teachings of Wang to comprise at least one of an ambient noise or an occupancy level, as taught by Jia. One would be motivated to do so to improve the QoS or mitigate the QoS loss (i.e., Jia, col. 19 lines 58-59).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein the environmental telemetry comprises sensor data from a sensor that measures a physical characteristic of the physical environment (i.e., sensors, Fig. 11 and page 8 paragraphs [0096]- [0097]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the method as in claim 1,
Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the recommendation indicates an upcoming network or environmental degradation to the quality of experience of the online application.
Jia teaches wherein the recommendation indicates an upcoming network or environmental degradation to the quality of experience of the online application (i.e., navigation component can provide indication where QoS is expected to degrade in the near future, col. 11 lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the method as in claim 1, further comprising reserving, by the device, use of particular location by the user during the future point in time via a meeting scheduling system (i.e., Wang, in page 1 paragraph [0002], discloses client meetings or interview calls. A person of ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize that for the client meeting or interview call to be performed, a particular location, date and time may be specified or/and reserved via a meeting scheduling system).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches wherein the recommendation includes navigation instructions to navigate the user to the particular location, based on the floor plan for the physical location (i.e., floor plan, Fig. 3 and page 3 paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein the network telemetry comprises wireless metrics (i.e., dB Value, Fig. 5 and page 4 paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the method as in claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly teach selecting the particular location from among the different locations for the recommendation to the user based on user redirection constraints associated with network load allocations.
Jia teaches selecting the particular location from among the different locations for the recommendation to the user based on user redirection constraints associated with network load allocations (i.e., loading balancing can be facilitated such that subset of the twenty-device including the second device are notified to move within the service area of the network device, col. 7 lines 1-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wang to select the particular location from among the different locations for the recommendation to the user based on user redirection constraints associated with network load balancing, as taught by Jia, for the reason Jia expressly taught (i.e., load balancing).
Regarding claim 11-15, and 17, those claims recite an apparatus for performing method claims 1-5 and 7, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites a tangible, non-transitory, and computer-readable medium storing program instructions that cause a device to perform a method claim 1, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
3. Claim(s) 5-6, 15-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Jia as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Satyanarayanan et al. (hereinafter, “Satyanarayanan”), US 8,995,635 B1.
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Wang teaches the apparatus as in claim 1.
The combination of teachings of Wang and Jia does not explicitly teach reserving by the device, use of particular location by the user during the future point in time via a meeting scheduling system.
Satyanarayanan teaches reserving by the device, use of particular location by the user during the future point in time via a meeting scheduling system (i.e., Satyanarayanan, in abstract, col. 2 lines 29-40 and col. 4 lines 23-35, discloses reschedule the teleconference/videoconference call/meeting for a second/specific teleconference location. Satyanarayanan, in col. 7 lines 9-11, also discloses meeting participants reserve teleconference rooms via the calendaring software).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Wang and Jia to reserve by the device, use of particular location by the user during the future point in time via a meeting scheduling system, as taught by Satyanarayanan. One would be motivated to do so to attain a level of confidence regarding the level of quality of teleconference calls (i.e., Satyanarayanan, col. 5 lines 3-5).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Wang teaches the method as in claim 5.
The combination of teachings of Wang and Jia does not explicitly teach causing, by the device, the meeting scheduling system to move a scheduled meeting at future point in time from particular location to another location in the physical environment to accommodate the user of the online application at the particular location instead.
Satyanarayanan teaches causing, by the device, the meeting scheduling system to move a scheduled meeting at future point in time from particular location to another location in the physical environment to accommodate the user of the online application at the particular location instead (i.e., Satyanarayanan, in abstract, teaches based on at least the status data and the availability data, the apparatus reschedules the teleconference call for a second teleconference location. Satyanarayanan, in col. 11 lines 24-30, further discloses: use the information indicating temporally adjacent meetings to find the best location to accommodate the participants if the participants have meetings directly before or after the meeting being rescheduled. Thus, if 3 of 4 participants are scheduled to meet at Building A at 1:00 PM, then it will be convenient for the same participants to meet at Building B, which is next door, at 2:00 PM)
Satyanarayanan, in col. 4 lines 23-35, further discloses determine that the meeting cannot be successfully executed at that room location…reschedule the particular teleconferencing meeting to occur in a different location, and notifies all participants as necessary so that no teleconferencing meetings are scheduled to take place at an unacceptable location…future meetings may be scheduled in the room that was previously determined as unusable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modify the combination of teachings of Wang and Jia to cause, by the device, the meeting scheduling system to move a scheduled meeting at future point in time from particular location to another location in the physical environment to accommodate the user of the online application at the particular location instead, as taught by Satyanarayanan. One would be motivated to do so to ensure the video and/or audio quality of scheduled teleconferencing meetings/calls (i.e., Satyanarayanan, col. 3 lines 30-61).
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches the apparatus as in claim 11.
The combination of teachings of Wang and Jia does not explicitly teach wherein the process when executed is further configured to: select the particular location from among different location for recommendation to the user based on a user capacity associate with the particular location at the future point in time.
Satyanarayanan teaches select the particular location from among different location for recommendation to the user based on a user capacity associate with the particular location at the future point in time (i.e., for a meeting of six participants at one room, TMS 124 can move the six participant to a new room that may hold 18 participants, Fig. 1 and col.10 lines 15-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Wang and Jia to select the particular location from among different location for recommendation to the user based on a user capacity associate with the particular location at the future point in time, as taught by Satyanarayanan. One would be motivated to do so to provide an efficient system for the user.
4. Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Jia as applied to claim 1 and/or 11 above, and further in view of Venkataraman et al. (hereafter, “Venkataraman”), US 2021/0295346 A1.
Regarding claims 9, Wang teaches the method as in claim 1.
The combination of teachings of Wang and Jia does not explicitly teach wherein the device obtains the network telemetry and the environmental telemetry from a software-defined networking controller.
Venkararaman teaches the device obtains the network telemetry and the environmental telemetry from a software-defined networking controller (i.e., abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Wang and Jia to obtain the network telemetry and the environmental telemetry from a software-defined networking controller, as taught by Venkaraman. One would be motivated to do so to provide intelligent life-cycle based information for presentation on a user interface (i.e., Venkaraman, page 1 paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches the apparatus as in claim 11, wherein the network telemetry comprises wireless metrics (i.e., dB Value, Fig. 5 and page 4 paragraph [0037]).
The combination of teachings of Wang and Jia does not explicitly teach the apparatus obtains the network telemetry and the environmental telemetry from a software-defined networking controller.
Venkararaman teaches the device obtains the network telemetry and the environmental telemetry from a software-defined networking controller (i.e., abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Wang and Jia to obtain the network telemetry and the environmental telemetry from a software-defined networking controller, as taught by Venkaraman. One would be motivated to do so to provide intelligent life-cycle based information for presentation on a user interface (i.e., Venkaraman, page 1 paragraph [0001]).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant’s argue in substance that
(A) Prior art does not teach or suggest predicting quality of experience metrics.
As to point (A), Jia does teach predicting quality of experience metrics (i.e., Jia, in col. 11 lines 17-22, discloses a prediction component can provide information indicative of the expected QoS levels at various locations. Jia, in col. 10 lines 36-39, also discloses “improve the QoS (e.g., to make the call, view the video, and so on)” (i.e., QoE)).
(B) Prior art does not teach reserving a particular location at a future time.
As to point (B), Wang, page 1 paragraph [0002], discloses client meeting or interview calls. A person of ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize that for the client meeting or interview call to be performed, a particular location, date and time may be specified or/and reserved via a meeting scheduling system.
In addition, Satyanarayanan also discloses reserving a particular location for accessing an online application at a future time (i.e., Satyanarayanan, in abstract, col. 2 lines 29-30 and col. 4 lines 23-29, discloses reschedule the particular teleconference/videoconference meeting to occur in a different/particular location. Satyanarayanan, in col. 7 lines 9-11, also discloses meeting participants reserve teleconference rooms via the calendaring software).
Please note: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., reserve a recommended particular location at a future time) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
(C) Satyanarayanan does not teach or suggest causing, by the device, the meeting scheduling system to move a scheduled meeting at the future point in time from the particular location to another location in the physical environment to accommodate the user of the online application at the particular location instead.
As to point (C), Satyanarayanan does teaches causing, by the device, the meeting scheduling system to move a scheduled meeting at the future point in time from the particular location to another location in the physical environment to accommodate the user of the online application at the particular location instead (i.e., Satyanarayanan, in col. 4 lines 13-35, rescheduling the particular teleconferencing meeting to occur in a different location. Satyanarayanan, in col. 11 lines 24-30, further discloses: use the information indicating temporally adjacent meetings to find the best location to accommodate the participants if the participants have meetings directly before or after the meeting being rescheduled. Thus, if 3 of 4 participants are scheduled to meet at Building A at 1:00 PM, then it will be convenient for the same participants to meet at Building B, which is next door, at 2:00 PM).
(D) A person having ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to combine Wang, Jia, and Satyanarayanan.
As to point (D), In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Wang, in page 4 paragraph [0039], discloses when the user experiences a bad signal or drop off, he/she contributes a useful data point that will be useful for analytics, so that other people can learn about the signal strength in that particular location. Satyanarayanan, col. 4 lines 54-60, further discloses rescheduling a teleconferencing meeting room is performed automatically in response to detecting one or more quality issue that indicate that holding the meeting as originally scheduled is undesirable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang’s system to reschedule the teleconferencing meeting room for the reason Satyanarayanan expressly taught (i.e., to attain a level of confidence regarding the level of quality of teleconference calls, col. 5 lines 3-5).
Conclusion
6. 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 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OANH DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Maxiflex Mon-Fri 6:00am-5:00pm.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on (571) 272-4170. 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.
/OANH DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441