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 Amendment
Applicant’s submission dated 21 November 2025 has been received and made of record. Claims 1, 4, 9, 14, 15, 18, and 23 have been amended. Claim 6 has been canceled. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every U.S.C. 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3 September 2025.
Response to Arguments
Although a new ground of rejection has been used to address additional limitations that have been added to claims 1 and 15 a response is considered necessary for several of applicant's arguments since reference Schierl will continue to be used to meet several claimed limitations.
In response to Applicant’s argument (Page 7, Paragraph 2) stating that Schierl fails to show receiving, from the client device, an indication of a buffer size related to the media related session, wherein the indication is received periodically and/or upon occurrence of an event. Schierl shows a network device receiving a buffer fullness or indication of a buffer size from a client device. (Page 30, lines 25-35) The sending of the buffer fullness to the network device may be done intermittently, periodically, or upon a respective request sent by the network device. (Page 31, lines 12-16)
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, (Pages 7-8) filed 21 November 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9 and 23 under U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vafin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0100970) in view of Annamraju et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0227349). The new rejections are detailed below.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shierl et al. (International Patent Publication WO 2018/082988), hereinafter Schierl, in view of Chakraborty et al. (International Patent Publication WO 2020/040727), hereinafter Chakraborty.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 14 and 15), Schierl discloses
A method performed by a server node (12) (Page 16, lines 1-24; i.e. network device) for handling a media related session (Page 11, lines 10-28) with a client device (10) (i.e. UE) in a communication network, the method comprising: (Fig. 1; Fig. 7; Fig. 8; Page 41, lines 10-25; i.e. A method performed by a server computing device comprising processor, memory and instructions to perform the method.)
- receiving (402), from the client device, an indication of a buffer size (i.e. buffer fullness) related to the media related session (Fig. 17; Page 30, lines 25-35), wherein the indication is received periodically and/or upon occurrence of an event. (Page 31, lines 12-16)
- triggering (404) an increase of one or more compute resources in the communication network to handle the media related session based on the received indication. (Page 31, lines 1-8; Page 22, lines 5-18; i.e. If the buffer fill level does not exceed a threshold then more network resources will be negotiated.)
However, Schierl fails to show
wherein the triggering comprises calculating an amount of compute resources needed based on the received indication and sending a request to a resource manager to add the calculated amount of compute resources.
Chakraborty shows
triggering an increase of one or more compute resources (i.e. bandwidth) in the communication network based on the received indication, (i.e. Chakraborty shows that the network device triggers and increase in available bandwidth based on traffic needs or an indication. Shierl shows triggering an increase in resources based on an received indication from the client.) wherein the triggering comprises calculating an amount (i.e. additional spectrum/bandwidth) of compute resources needed based on the received indication and sending a request to a resource manager to add the calculated amount of compute resources. ([0010-0011]; [0017]; [0019]; [0023])
Chakraborty and Schierl are considered analogous art because they involve at network device requesting additional resources from a resource manager. Therefore, 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 Schierl to incorporate the teachings of Chakraborty wherein the triggering comprises calculating an amount of compute resources needed based on the received indication and sending a request to a resource manager to add the calculated amount of compute resources. Doing so provides that the resource manager is given the amount of resources needed.
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly claim 16), Schierl in view of Chakraborty shows
The method according to claim 1, further comprising
- transmitting (405) a reconfiguration message (i.e. predetermined signal) to the client device (10) indicating to the client device (10) not to decrease the buffer size during the media related session. (Page 19, lines 19-36; i.e. A signaling to increase the buffer size is equivalent to signaling not to decrease the buffer size.)
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly claim 17), Schierl in view of Chakraborty shows
The method according to claim 1, wherein triggering (404) comprises sending to a resource manager managing compute resources in the communication network, a request to add the one or more compute resources to handle the media related session. (Schierl: Page 22, lines 5-18)
Regarding claim 4 (and similarly claim 18), Schierl in view of Chakraborty shows
The method according to claim 3, wherein triggering (404) further comprises receiving a response from the resource manager, wherein the response indicates whether the request is granted or not and includes information about available compute resources when the request is not granted. (Chakraborty: [0031])
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 Schierl to incorporate the teachings of Chakraborty wherein triggering (404) further comprises receiving a response from the resource manager, wherein the response indicates whether the request is granted or not and includes information about available compute resources when the request is not granted to provide the messaging details for a negotiation.
Regarding claim 5 (and similarly claim 19), Schierl in view of Chakraborty shows all of the features with respect to claim 4 as outlined above. Schierl in view of Chakraborty further shows
The method according to the claim 4, wherein the response is indicating that the request is not granted, and wherein the triggering further comprises sending another request to the resource manager based on the received response. (Chakraborty: [0031])
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schierl in view of Chakraborty in view of Dimitrov (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0164518).
Regarding claim 7, Schierl in view of Chakraborty shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Schierl in view of Chakraborty fails to show
The method according to claim 1 wherein the media related session comprises a gaming session.
Dimitrov shows
wherein the media related session comprises a gaming session. ([0037-0038])
Dimitrov and Schierl in view of Chakraborty are considered analogous art because they involve media streaming of video using buffering at the client. Schierl shows that the media may be video. Dimitrov shows that that video may associated with a gaming session. Therefore, 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 Schierl in view of Chakraborty to incorporate the teachings of Dimitrov wherein the media related session comprises a gaming session. Doing so provides another environment in which to implement the monitoring of the client buffer.
Regarding claim 8, Schierl in view of Chakraborty shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Schierl in view of Chakraborty fails to show
The method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more compute resources comprise one or more processing resources in a cloud computing environment, and the client device is a wireless communication device.
Dimitrov shows
wherein the one or more compute resources comprise one or more processing resources (i.e. GPU) in a cloud computing environment, ([0033]; ([0112]; i.e. When the frame rate is adjusted, the GPU capacity for the session will change.) and the client device is a wireless communication device. ([0042])
Dimitrov and Schierl in view of Chakraborty are considered analogous art because they involve media streaming of video using buffering at the client. Schierl shows that the media may be video. Dimitrov shows that that video may associated with a gaming session in a cloud environment. Therefore, 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 Schierl in view of Chakraborty to incorporate the teachings of Dimitrov wherein the one or more compute resources comprise one or more processing resources in a cloud computing environment, and the client device is a wireless communication device. Doing so provides for another environment in which to implement the monitoring of the client buffer.
Claims 9, 10, 12, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vafin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0100970), herein Vafin, in view of Annamraju et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0227349), hereinafter Annamraju.
Regarding claim 9 (and similarly claim 23), Vafin shows
A method performed by a client device (10) (Fig. 1, 108; [0032]; i.e. receiver) for handling a media related session with a server node (12) (Fig. 1, 102; i.e. transmitter) in a communication network, the method comprising: ([0032]; Fig. 1)
transmitting (501) to the server node (12), an indication (i.e. JB state info) of a buffer size related to the media related session, (Fig. 2, S202; Fig. 1; [0035])
receiving (502), from the server node, a reconfiguration message (Fig. 1, “Info to control JB state”) indicating to the client device (10) not to decrease the buffer size during the media related session; and ([0083]; [0087]; i.e. The receiver receives information to increase the jitter buffer size. Therefore, receiving information not to decrease the buffer size.)
configuring (503) one or more bounds of a buffer based on the received reconfiguration message by setting a lower bound of a target delay of the jitter buffer. ([0087]; i.e. The size/delay of the jitter buffer is set thereby configuring a lower bound of a target delay of the jitter buffer.)
However, Vafin fails to show
wherein the client device monitors arrival times of video packets and adapts a jitter buffer configuration based on the monitoring to generate the indication of the buffer size;
Annamraju shows
wherein the client device monitors arrival times of video packets and adapts a jitter buffer configuration based on the monitoring to generate the indication of the buffer size; ([0043])
Annamraju and Vafin are considered analogous art because they involve the use of jitter buffers when transmitting media. Therefore, 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 Vafin to incorporate the teachings of Annamraju wherein the client device monitors arrival times of video packets and adapts a jitter buffer configuration based on the monitoring to generate the indication of the buffer size. Doing so provides a method for the client device to determine the information to be provided to the transmitter.
Regarding claim 10 (and similarly claim 24), Vafin in view of Annamraju shows all of the features with respect to claim 10 as outlined above. Vafin in view of Annamraju further shows
The method according to claim 9, wherein transmitting the indication is performed when the buffer size is above a threshold. (Annamraju: [0043]; [0093]; [0088]; i.e. When a change in the condition of the network is identified and indication is set to the transmitting device.
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 Vafin to incorporate the teachings of Annamraju wherein transmitting the indication is performed when the buffer size is above a threshold to provide the indication when it is necessary for the transmitter to adapt the transmission.
Regarding claim 12, Vafin in view of Annamraju shows all of the features with respect to claim 10 as outlined above. Vafin in view of Annamraju further shows
The method according to claim 9, further comprising
configuring (503) one or more bounds of a buffer based on the received configuration message. (Vafin: [0087])
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vafin in view of Annamraju in view of Dimitrov (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0164518).
Regarding claim 11, Vafin in view of Annamraju shows all of the features with respect to claim 9 as outlined above. However, Vafin in view of Annamraju fails to show
The method according to claim 1 wherein the media related session comprises a gaming session.
Dimitrov shows
wherein the media related session comprises a gaming session. ([0037-0038])
Dimitrov and Vafin in view of Annamraju are considered analogous art because they involve media streaming using buffering at the client. Vafin and Annamraju shows that the media may be video. Dimitrov shows that that video may associated with a gaming session. Therefore, 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 Schierl to incorporate the teachings of Dimitrov wherein the media related session comprises a gaming session. Doing so provides another environment in which to implement the monitoring of the client buffer.
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 CAROLINE H JAHNIGE whose telephone number is (571)272-8450. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. 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.
/CAROLINE H JAHNIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451