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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on 03/18/2024 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-6, 11, 13-15, 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are drawn to a “machine-readable storage medium”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a machine-readable storage medium (also called computer readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (or lacks an explicit definition). See MPEP § 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 13-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang; Menglei et al US 20180302333 A1, hereinafter Zhang, in view of Markowitz; Robert et al US 20110035641 A1, hereinafter Markowitz, and further in view of Peon; Roberto Javier et al US 9432274 B1, hereinafter Peon.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 19, Zhang teaches, a method performed by a proxy network device that is on a path between a first peer network device and a second peer network device (see Zhang Figure 1, 160 Proxy), the method comprising:
determining, for an end-to-end packet-based traffic flow between the first and second peer network devices, a first duration to perform traffic forwarding between the first peer network device and the proxy network device, and a second duration to perform traffic forwarding between the proxy network device and the second peer network device (Zhang [39] “In some example embodiments consistent with the present description, the wireless communications system includes a proxy (e.g., 160) located at the base station, … the proxy can measure a delay between the sending device and the proxy, and a delay between the proxy and the receiving device.”).
Zhang does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Markowitz teaches, based on the first and second durations, causing retransmission of an end- to-end packet within the end-to-end packet-based traffic flow (This limitation is interpreted, in line with the Spec, as causing, by the proxy device, delay-based retransmission. Markowitz [62] “Alternatively, the gateway proxy device 115 may periodically measure the network congestion of the network 120 and may send a retransmission request when the network congestion falls below a predetermined threshold. The gateway proxy device 115 may measure the network congestion level by pinging the media server 125-135 to determine the delay in receiving a response from the media server 125-135. The delay may be correlated to a network congestion level.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang to include the features as taught by Markowitz above in order to provide methods for streaming media information via at least one network and apparatus and methods for increasing the quality of stored media information for increasing the quality of stored media information (Markowitz [0003]).
Zhang and Markowitz do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Peon teaches, wherein the end-to-end packet is embedded as a payload of a QUIC datagram, where the end-to-end packet was previously transmitted between the first peer network device and the proxy network device, and wherein the retransmission of the end-to-end packet is between the first peer network device and the proxy network device (Peon col.3, l.20-24 “The intermediary node may split the route between the two end points, and may thus divide where a packet is lost during transmission from one end point to another end point (e.g., a transmission between two end points over a TCP or QUIC connection).”; col.3, l.57-67 “The intermediary may then facilitate a process for recovery of lost packets, while avoiding re-transmission of a packet over a portion of the transmission route on which the packet was not lost, and hence reduce the bandwidth cost of a re-transmission. The splitting of the transmission route by the intermediary may facilitate better understanding of congestion on each of the segments, and provide for better utilization of available bandwidth. The splitting, in some implementations, may reduce the distance a re-transmitted packet must travel, and hence reduce the latency cost of recovery.”, teaches causing, by the intermediary node i.e., proxy device), re-transmission of packet over QUIC connection (i.e., payload of a QUICK datagram) between two end points).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang and Markowitz to include the features as taught by Peon above in order to provide a system for facilitating packet loss recovery and decreasing delay to re-transmit a lost packet, using an intermediary (Peon col.1, l.22-24, l.28-29).
With respect to claim 11, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding proxy device. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
With respect to claim 19, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding machine-readable storage medium. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Zhang, in view of Markowitz and Peon, teaches the method/device, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Peon further teaches, wherein the retransmission of the end-to-end packet is further based on severity of traffic loss between the first peer network device and the proxy network device (Peon col.1, l.6-24; col.3, l.61-67, teaching retransmission from the intermediary node at congestion i.e., at severity of traffic loss).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang, in view of Markowitz and Peon, teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Zhang further teaches, wherein the retransmission of the end-to-end packet is further based on a lapse of time since the end-to-end packet is determined to be in need of retransmission and a third duration to perform traffic forwarding between the first and second peer network devices (This limitation is interpreted, in line with Spec [117], as determining RTT for the delay duration. Zhang [39] “In some such example embodiments, the proxy may infer the minimum RTT between the sending device and the receiving device.”, [40] “In some example methods consistent with the present description, the information about delay between the receiving device and the sending device includes an RTT and a minimum RTT.”, teaches determining RTT that can be used for retransmission as outlined in Markowitz or Peon above).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Zhang, in view of Markowitz and Peon, teaches the method/device, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Markowitz further teaches, wherein the second duration is determined using one or more of: an initial handshake packet and a response to the initial handshake packet, a header bit in QUIC packets involved in the determination of the second duration, an Internet control message protocol (ICMP) echo message transmitted, and a prior measurement (Markowitz [62] “The gateway proxy device 115 may measure the network congestion level by pinging the media server 125-135 to determine the delay in receiving a response from the media server 125-135. The delay may be correlated to a network congestion level.”, teaches using “an Internet control message protocol (ICMP) echo message transmitted”. Satisfies one or more of” criteria).
Claims 2, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Markowitz and Peon, and yet further in view of Murgia; Marco Antonio US 20190124010 A1, hereinafter Murgia.
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 20, Zhang, in view of Markowitz and Peon, teaches the method/device/medium, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1, 11 and 19.
Zhang and Markowitz and Peon do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Murgia teaches, wherein the end-to-end packet is identified using an application identifier, and wherein retransmission of the end-to-end packet is further based on a rule mapped to the application identifier (Murgia Figs. 1A, 1C, 3; [4] “The packet processor may subsequently fully classify the flow and generate a record in an association database for the combination of application, address, port, and protocol number, and domain, along with a starting confidence level or probability. Once fully classified, proper routing and policy rules may be applied. A subsequent flow for the same application, with the same destination IP address, may then be classified as the same as the prior flow, with the corresponding routing and policy rules applied.”, [9] “extracting an application identifier from the first packet, by the packet processor; and adjusting a confidence score for the association between the first application, the first destination address, and the first domain, by the packet processor, based on the extracted application identifier.”; [30] “Packet headers at various layers of the network stack may provide different information, including identification of a destination IP address (at the network layer), destination port address (at the transport layer), and identification of an application 124 (at the application layer).”; [50] “Intermediary device 100 may include one or more packet processor(s) 220 … Packet processor(s) 220 may maintain an association database 150, as discussed above, and may perform additional functionality according to a policy engine 230 and/or policy database 235, such as buffering, multiplexing, pooling, encrypting, compressing, re-ordering, pre-acking, retransmitting, applying QoS protocols, or any other type and form of processing. As discussed above, packet processor(s) 220 may select and apply routing policies according to an application identified for a combination of address and domain extracted from or identified in a first packet of a communication flow.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang and Markowitz and Peon to include the features as taught by Murgia above in order to provide a method relating to low-latency classification of network packets [Murgia [0001]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 are 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. Claims 7-10 and 16-18 are subjected to the same objection because of their dependency on the above objected claims. The reason for objection is that prior art fails to teach the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
IDS Reference, PLAMONDON ROBER, EP 2119134 B1 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMIC BANDWIDTH CONTROL BY PROXY.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475