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 .
This Final rejection is in response to the amendment filed on 11/24/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 12-20 are currently amended. Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the amended limitation classifying, …with a machine learning model trained …” and dependent claims 2-5 recite a first machine learning engine and a second machine learning engine and it is not clear what the “machine learning model” in claim 1 is referring to beyond the independent claim. Claim 13 and other corresponding dependent claims are analyzed similarly.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…a quality of a transmission in a network…” and it raises the question ‘quality of a transmission of what.’ Amended language is incomplete. Similarly, adjusting the bitrate usually has a context such as a media stream which is missing in the claim language. Claim 13 repeats the same limitations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…transmission to a second value that fully utilizes the second bandwidth level” and the scope and breadth of the claim term “fully” is ambiguous and not clear. Claim 13 repeats the same limitation.
Examiner’s Note: as was discussed in an interview with the Applicant’s representative, adding claims 2-5 to the independent claims will expedite the prosecution and also overcoming the 112 issues noted above. Examiner suggests that the Applicant consider the proposed amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but the amended claims include new 112 rejection. However, they appear to have overcome the previous 112a and 112b rejections. Examiner suggests adding claims 2-5 to the independent claims will expedite the prosecution and also overcoming the 112 issues noted above. Examiner suggests that the Applicant consider the proposed amendment. Prior art for instance, US 20230010512 A1 uses an ML algorithm to adjust transmission rates when congestion is perceived to occur before TCP protocol makes corrections but does not recite all of the suggested proposed amendment.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights