DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2023-12-01 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-29 are pending for consideration.
35 USC §101 - Claim Rejections
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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) 29
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim subject matter is directed to software. Software per se is not patent-eligible subject matter. While the preamble is directed to a “system” and the only sub-component of said system is “a software tool” where no other hardware recited as part of the system. Accordingly, a broadest reasonable interpretation is the system can be purely software.
35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention.
Claim(s) 7, 10
can be
The claim(s) recites phrases that are directed to indefinite language (e.g., “for example,” “or the like,” “such as,” or “maybe”) because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim(s) 2, 5, 8, 9 and 3, 6-7
“the server”
Due to the insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, it is unclear as to how to construe the limitation – for example, it is unclear where this limitation originated and/or if the limitation was intended to refer to a previously cited element. For example there is a previously introduced “network traffic server node” but “server” and “server node” are different things.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the base/intervening claims as discussed herein and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 8, 9 and 3, 6-7
“the client”
Due to the insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, it is unclear as to how to construe the limitation – for example, it is unclear where this limitation originated and/or if the limitation was intended to refer to a previously cited element. For example, there is a previously introduced “a network traffic client node” but “client” and “client node” are different things.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the base/intervening claims as discussed herein and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim(s) 1 and 2-29
The claim(s) recite variants of:
“in response to the obtained network metrics”
The claims literally require a response to a noun (i.e., person, place, or thing). This is similar to, e.g., "in response to the house" which is grammatically confusing. Contrast this with “in response to detecting a characteristic/property of the noun” (e.g., in response to detecting the presence of the house). Consequently, it is unclear as to what about the noun invokes the response. Was intended to say “in response to obtaining the network metrics”?
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the base/intervening claims as discussed herein and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) is/are indicated as having allowable subject matter over the prior art but rejected to herein.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 11, 22 and 12-21, 23-28
The claim(s) include allowable subject matter with respect to the prior art and would be allowable if:
(i) Rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
(ii) Amended to overcome other non-prior art rejections and/or objections presented herein (e.g., 35 USC 112 and 101 rejections), including rejections/objections directed to base and intervening claims.
(iii) In cases where claim limitations were unclear/indefinite and the Examiner indicated what he/she thought what the limitations attempted to convey, any clarifying amendments would need to be commensurate with the Examiner’s interpretation. In the case of the 112(b) issues, the Examiner has interpretation for the purposes of examination:
o “in response to the obtained network metrics” = “in response to the obtaining network metrics”
o “the server” = “network traffic server node”
o “the client” = “network traffic client node”
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent claim 1 requires forming packet train between a client and server node, obtaining at least two network metrics, and within the at least two metrics one must be a round trip time and another must be either: packet loss, random jitter, or spiky jitter. Another metrics, a user experience metric estimate is then determined based on the N metrics. In response to obtaining the metrics, dynamically changing packet trains to emulate interactive OTT service packet patterns.
The below section identifies the closest prior art and how the art is different from the claimed invention
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Cited References
MOORE - US20170353389 teaches “dynamically changing a quality of service for a data packet that is delivered over-the-top” but this is different from dynamically changing a traffic pattern/train.
ARNGREN - US20250220010 teaches “, the user terminal emulation application 110 may provide a communication service function corresponding to, for example, an over-the-top Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service, Netflix service, Facebook service, Microsoft Teams meeting service, Internet browser service, a cellular communication service, etc.” but this is different from dynamically adapting subsequent packet trains such that their network traffic packet patterns emulate network traffic packet patterns of the interactive over-the-top (OTT) service.
DUNNE - US20150264104 teaches “determining 126 the changed codec-network path combination may be based upon, at least in part, transmitted emulated communication traffic having traffic/packet patterns simulating the various different available codecs” but fails to teach the emulation for OTT.
KOLAR - US20230027754 teaches user experience metric based on loss, latency and jitter but fails to teach at least two metrics, one being round trip time (RTT).
BACHMUTSKY - US20170272792 teaches “download patterns may be monitored relative to accessing a particular content via one or more STBs (STBs) associated with a subscriber. Also monitored is if the same particular content is shared by other STBs for downloading to other subscribers. Popularity-related metrics with respect to the particular content may be determined based on accessing of the particular content by the subscriber” but does not teach obtaining network traffic metrics including RTT and PL/RJ/SJ.
KOVARI - US20210051088 teaches techniques for real-time encrypted over-the-top (OTT) data quality analysis including generating quality metrics but does not teach but does not teach dynamically adapting subsequent packet trains such that their network traffic packet patterns emulate network traffic packet patterns of the interactive over-the-top (OTT) service.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415