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 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.
In response to the 112(b) rejection of claims 11-14. The amendment overcome the 112 rejection, therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-14,17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui et al (us 2015/0373302) (hereinafter Hui) in view of Halepovic et al (us 2020/0186615) (hereinafter Halepovic) and further in view of Lawson et al (us 7,281,0970 (hereinafter Lawson).
As regarding claim 1, Hui discloses wherein the data traffic comprises video traffic and audio traffic, separating, in the data traffic, the video traffic from the audio traffic (see Hui 0011, 0030, 0040, data comprising audio data and video data, and separating media data to audio data and video data).
Hui is silent in regard to the concept of analyzing, based on the video traffic, the data traffic quality of the data traffic flowing between the user equipment and the server of the video service provider.
Halepovic teaches the concept of analyzing, based on the separated video traffic, the data traffic quality of the data traffic flowing between the user equipment and the server of the video service provider (see Halepovic 0015, 0040, using video from video session to infer QoE metrics (i.e. quality of data traffic) and recommend changes or improvement).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Halepovic to Hui because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Hui with Halepovic’s teaching for the purpose of providing better experience for users who stream videos over a network (see Halepovic 0002).
The combination of Hui-Halepovic is silent in regard to the concept of based on a request size of a request sent from the user equipment to the server.
Halepovic-Hui is silent in regard to the concept of separate the request into different types a request size of a request sent from the user equipment to the server.
Lawson teaches the concept of separate the request into different types a request size of a request sent from the user equipment to the server (see Lawson col.5, lines 57-65, data requests are received by the filter device and separate the requests into different types/classes based on the size of the request).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lawson to Hui- Halepovic because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Hui-Halepovic with Lawson’s teaching for the purpose of efficiently determine and classify the requests.
As regarding claim 2, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses the data traffic quality comprises a quality of experience relative to the data traffic (see Halepovic 0015, QoE of data). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 2.
As regarding claim 3, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses the quality of experience relative to the data traffic relates to a quality of experience of the video traffic (see Halepovic 0015, 0040, using video from video session to infer QoE metrics (i.e. quality of data traffic) and recommend changes or improvement). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 3.
As regarding claim 4, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses prior to said separating the video traffic from the audio traffic, reconstructing, from one or more data packets in the data traffic, one or more request-response pairs from corresponding, respective requests sent from the user equipment to the server and respective responses sent from the server to the user equipment (see Halepovic 0043-0044, 0060-0061, reconstructing data from HTTP transactions between client and server, where network traffic is a sequence of HTTP requests and responses (see Halepovic 0019), after the reconstruction of HTTP transactions, filter out data that are video, audio or other data such as metadata (see Halepovic 0062-0064)), and wherein said separating the video traffic from the audio traffic comprises separating the video traffic from the audio traffic within the one or more reconstructed request-response pairs (see Halepovic 0062-0064, after the reconstruction of HTTP transactions, filter out data that are video, audio or other data such as metadata), and wherein said analyzing of the data traffic quality of the data traffic is based on the video traffic which is separated from the audio traffic within the reconstructed one or more request- response pairs (see Halepovic 0066, 0070, after classify data to audio, video etc, (in paragraph 0063-0064), determine the QoE for the data). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 4.
As regarding claim 5, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses a plurality of said request-response pairs are reconstructed from a plurality of the data packets (see Halepovic 0043-0044, 0060-0061, reconstructing data from HTTP transactions between client and server, where network traffic is a sequence of HTTP requests and responses (see Halepovic 0019)). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 5.
As regarding claim 6, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses reconstructing is based on packet header information in the one or more data packets (see Halepovic, 0043-0044, exchange of data packets between client and server, reconstruct using packet headers). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 6.
As regarding claim 7, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses assigning the one or more data packets to one or more connections between the user equipment and the server, and wherein the one or more request-response pairs are reconstructed on a per-connection basis (see Halepovic 0043-0044, 0060-0061, reconstructing data from HTTP transactions between client and server, the data flow between client and server using TCP connections via which data packets travel, where network traffic is a sequence of HTTP requests and responses(see Halepovic 0019)). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 7.
As regarding claim 8, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses processing the one or more data packets is performed by a network entity or network function which is different from a network entity or network function by which processing of the one or more request-response pairs is performed (see Halepovic 0084, one or more components perform operations discussed in figure.2 and 3). It is obvious to have operations perform by one or more components for the purpose improving efficiency and improving performance when carry out the processing.
As regarding claim 9, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses filtering out, prior to said separating of the video traffic from the audio traffic, one or more request-response pairs (see Halepovic 0062-0063, filter out the data of a certain type such as metadata or acknowledgment, then classify data as audio or video). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 9.
As regarding claim 10, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses the filtering out of the one or more request-response pairs is dependent on a said video service provider (see Halepovic 0062, video services may separate audio, video content in different transaction, thus the filtering is depended on the video services). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 10.
As regarding claim 11, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses whether to filter out the one or more request-response pair is based on the request size of a request, to which the request response-pair corresponds, sent from the user equipment to the server (see Halepovic 0063-0065, the data flow between client and server using TCP connections via which data packets travel, where network traffic is a sequence of HTTP requests and responses (see Halepovic 0019), filter out the type of data based on the size for example filter out metadata, separate audio and video if data bitrate is within or outside certain value, it is obvious to use request size instead of response size for the purpose of intended implementation, also see Wang 0140, 0209, determine it’s a video/audio based on size of the uplink request). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 11.
As regarding claim 12, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses a said request- response pair is filtered out if the request size is below an average request size of requests sent from the user equipment to the server over a predefined time period (see Halepovic 0063-0065, the data flow between client and server using TCP connections via which data packets travel, where network traffic is a sequence of HTTP requests and responses (see Halepovic 0019), filter out the type of data based on the size for example filter out metadata, separate audio and video if data bitrate is within or outside certain value, it is obvious to use request size instead of response size for the purpose of intended implementation). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 12.
As regarding claim 13, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses a said request-response pair is filtered out (i) if the request size is above the average request size of requests sent from the user equipment to the server over the predefined time period and (ii) if a ratio of requests with request sizes above the average request size to all requests is below a predefined value (see Halepovic 0063-0065, the data flow between client and server using TCP connections via which data packets travel, where network traffic is a sequence of HTTP requests and responses (see Halepovic 0019), filter out the type of data based on the size for example filter out metadata, separate audio and video if data bitrate is within or outside a certain range, it is obvious to use request size instead of response size for the purpose of intended implementation). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 13.
As regarding claim 14, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses a said request-response pair is filtered out if the ratio of requests with request sizes below the average request size to all requests is below a further predefined value (see Halepovic 0063-0065, network traffic is a sequence of HTTP requests and responses, filter out the type of data based on the size for example filter out metadata, separate audio and video if data bitrate is within or outside a certain range, it is obvious to use request size instead of response size for the purpose of intended implementation). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 14.
As regarding claim 17, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses said separating the video traffic from the audio traffic is performed value (see Halepovic 0063-0065, network traffic is a sequence of HTTP requests and responses, filter out the type of data based on the size for example filter out metadata, separate audio and video) while the user equipment receives video-content via the data traffic (see Hui 0037, measuring QoE for audio, video during the exchange of data traffic). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 17.
As regarding claim 18, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses filtering out the audio traffic from the data traffic flowing between the user equipment and the server prior to said analyzing of the data traffic quality (see Halepovic 0064-0065, classify audio data, QoE metric is inferred (see Halepovic 0070)). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 18.
As regarding claim 19, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses the separated video traffic and the separated audio traffic each comprise a corresponding, respective indicator for indicating the separated video traffic and the separated audio traffic, respectively, and wherein said analyzing of the data traffic quality is based on the separated video traffic indicated by the corresponding indicator (see Halepovic 0062, video services may separate audio, video content in different transaction, thus the filtering is depended on the video services, it is obvious that the type of media is indicated in the data traffic when sending for easy recognize by the receiving end). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 19.
As regarding claim 20, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses analyzing, based on the separated audio traffic, the data traffic quality of the data traffic flowing between the user equipment and the server of the video service provider (see Halepovic 0015, 0040, using data whether it’s audio or video from video session to infer QoE metrics (i.e. quality of data traffic) and recommend changes or improvement). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 20.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui-Halepovic-Lawson as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Joch et al (us 2017/0237777) (hereinafter Joch).
As regarding claim 15, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson discloses the invention as claims in claim 1 above, however Hui-Halepovic-Lawson is silent in regard to the concept of the data traffic flows in an uplink direction from the user equipment to the server.
Joch teaches the data traffic flows in an uplink direction from the user equipment to the server (see Joch 0065, track request response in upstream traffic from client to server).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Joch to Hui-Halepovic-Lawson because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Hui-Halepovic-Lawson with Joch’s teaching for the purpose of efficiently determining QoE for data traffic.
As regarding claim 16, Hui-Halepovic-Lawson-Joch discloses analyzing of the data traffic quality is based on a plurality of uplink data packets (see Joch 0112-0014, QoE estimation for traffic from client to server). The same motivation was utilized in claim 15 applied equally well to claim 16.
Conclusion
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 DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226.
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 at (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.
/DUYEN M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights