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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 02/18/2026.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims. In Amendment, claim 9 is cancelled and claims 1, 4-8, and 10-13 are amended. This Office Action is made final.
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 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are directed to an abstract idea under the mental process wherein the limitations “calculate…with each other”; and “generate a learning model…on the terminal device” and “for each of the packet groups…as at least one piece of the first group information…” can be mentally be done in human mind with pen and paper given the information for analyzing under Prong I step 2A. The other limitations including “a memory” and “a processor…configured to” are considered as additional element. However, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely well known component in a computer system under Prong II step 2A. Thus, it does not integrate into a practical application. Under step 2B, these additional elements either individually or in combination of does not integrate into a practical application as they are merely well known component in a computer system as indicated in MPEP 2106.05(d).
Re claims 2-8, 10-11 and 13, these claims are not integrated into the practical application as they are either further detail the abstract idea limitations or additional elements which insignificantly amount to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramanujam et al. (U.S. 2022/0124141 A1).
Re claim 1, Ramanujam et al. disclose in Figures 1-14 a network device (e.g. abstract and Figures 2-3) comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and the processor configured to: calculate, based on acquisition statuses of packets in a capture device that acquires the packets transmitted from an application device to a terminal device over a network, first group information indicating the acquisition statuses for each of a plurality of packet groups each including a plurality of packets having a predetermined relationship with each other (e.g. Figures 9-13 and its paragraphs [0002 and 0137-0147] discloses data statistics of collected information of traffics/packets of devices over the network); and generate a learning model by learning teacher data including the first group information calculated (e.g. abstract with creating learning model), first communication condition information indicating communication conditions of the packets in the network (e.g. paragraphs [0010-0012] with health of traffic/data), and first quality information indicating quality in terms of output of the packets on the terminal device (e.g. paragraphs [0041-0042] with quality of experience QoE), wherein for each of the packet groups, the processor generates, as at least one piece of the first group information, information indicating a time difference between a reception timing of a packet received first among the packets included in the packet group and a reception timing of a packet received first among the packets included a packet group transmitted immediately before the packet group (e.g. Figures 12-13 and paragraphs [0103-0107 and 0153] with timing information including the duration of certain group of packet of video).
Re claim 2, Ramanujam et al. disclose in Figures 1-14 the packets are packets constituting moving image data that is distributed from the application device to the terminal device and reproduced on the terminal device (e.g. abstract, paragraph [0002] and Figures 12-13 with video as moving image data), and the first quality information is information indicating QoE (Quality of Experience) of the moving image data on the terminal device (e.g. abstract and paragraphs [0016-0018] with QoE of video).
Re claim 3, Ramanujam et al. disclose in Figures 1-14 the plurality of packets having the predetermined relationship with each other are a plurality of packets used to reproduce the moving image data in a same time period (e.g. Figures 12-13 and paragraphs [0190-0192]).
Re claim 4, Ramanujam et al. disclose in Figures 1-14 the processor circuitry acquires the packets transmitted from the capture device, and the processor circuitry calculates the first group information based on the acquisition statuses of the packets (e.g. Figures 9-13 and its paragraphs [0002 and 0137-0147] discloses data statistics of collected information of traffics/packets of devices over the network).
Re claim 5, Ramanujam et al. disclose in Figures 1-14 the processor circuitry calculates the first communication condition information based on the acquisition statuses of the packets (e.g. . Figures 9-13 and its paragraphs [0002 and 0137-0147] discloses data statistics of collected information of traffics/packets of devices over the network).
Re claim 6, Ramanujam et al. disclose in Figures 1-14 the capture device generates the first communication condition information based on the acquisition statuses of the packets in the capture device, the processor circuitry acquires the first communication condition information transmitted from the capture device (e.g. Figure 3 and paragraphs [0081-0083]).
Re claim 7, Ramanujam et al. disclose in Figures 1-14 for each of the packet groups, the processor circuitry generates, as at least one piece of the first group information, information indicating a time difference between a reception timing of a packet received first among the packets included in the packet group and a reception timing of a packet received last among the packets included in the packet group (e.g. Figures 10-13 and paragraphs [0103-0107] with time total/differences).
Re claim 8, Ramanujam et al. disclose in Figures 1-14 for each of the packet groups, the processor circuitry generates, as at least one piece of the first group information, information indicating a time difference between a reception timing of a packet received first among the packets included in the packet group and a reception timing of a packet received last among the packets included in a packet group transmitted immediately before the packet group (e.g. Figures 10-13 and paragraph [0041] with latency data).
Re claim 10, Ramanujam et al. disclose in Figures 1-14 for each of the packet groups, the processor circuitry generates, as at least one piece of the first group information, a total amount of data of the packets included in the packet group (e.g. Figure 10 with totalByte up/down).
Re claim 11, Ramanujam et al. disclose in Figures 1-14 the processor circuitry calculates, based on the acquisition statuses of other packets transmitted from the application device to the terminal device over the network, second group information indicating the acquisition statuses for each of a plurality of packet groups (e.g. Figures 9-13 and its paragraphs [0002 and 0137-0147] discloses data statistics of collected information of traffics/packets of devices over the network for different application/device), the processor circuitry acquires second quality information output from the learning model as a result of input of the second group information calculated and second communication condition information indicating communication conditions of the other packets in the network; and the processor circuitry outputs the acquired second quality information (e.g. paragraphs [0041-0042] with quality of experience QoE).
Re claim 12, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 13, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 11. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in pages 7-10 for claim1 and 12 that (1) it is impractical and/or impossible to generate a learning model by learning teacher data; (2) significantly more is analyzed under step 2B instead of Prong II step 2A; (3) there is no evidence that the generate a learning mode is well-understood, routine, or conventional; and (4) similar arguments for independent claim 12.
The examiner respectfully submits that (1) nothing detail in the claim that would prevent the step of generating a learning model by one ordinary skill in the art. The claim does not claiming any specific detail of the model and/or how to generate this model. Thus, one can perform in human mind with aids of pen and paper with provided learning data to produce a model (abstract model) with the intended/desired function; (2) as mentioned in the rejection above, all the additional elements (excluded the abstract idea limitations) are analyzed under Prong II step 2A and step 2B wherein only certain non-abstract idea limitations are identified in Prong II step 2A including the memory, processor circuitry coupled to the memory wherein these additional memory are well known component of the computer system. There is no additional element that would be significantly amount to the judicial exception in order to integrate into the practical application as required for patent eligibility; (3) the rejection does not indicate the generate a learning model is well known in the art as alleged by the applicant but rather this generate learning model is considered/analyzed as abstract idea limitation under the mental processed as seen above in the rejection; and (4) similar response applied to claim 12 arguments.
The applicant argues in pages 11-12 for claims 1 and 12 that the reference does not teach the amended portion which is the original claim 9.
The examiner respectfully submits that the original claim 9 or the amended portion of these independent claims are interpreted broadly as merely calculating the interval or duration of a group of packets as the group information which is clearly seen in paragraphs [0103-0107 and 0153]. In these paragraphs, they do disclose a duration of a burst packets of raw video data as part of the attribute information of the video.
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 PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451