DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
General Information Matter
Please note, the instant Non-Provisional application (18/862,612) under prosecution at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been assigned to David Zarka (Examiner) in Art Unit 2449. To aid in correlating any papers for 18/862,612 all further correspondence regarding the instant application should be directed to the Examiner.
Joint Inventors
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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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 § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Preliminary Amendment and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment received November 4, 2024.
Claims 1–20 are currently pending.
Provisional Application
The instant application claims benefit to provisional application No. 63/339,663 filed on May 9, 2022 under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDSs filed December 3, 2024 and September 3, 2025 each comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The IDSs have been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Specification
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(b):
The sheet or sheets presenting the abstract may not include other parts of the application or other material. The abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words in length. The purpose of the abstract is to enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.
MPEP § 608.01(b) recites “The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title.”
The abstract is objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(b) for repeating information given in the title. The Examiner recommends deleting the first sentence of the abstract.
Applicants are reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure—the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.72.
The lengthy Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicants’ cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicants may become aware in the Specification.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 101: “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.”
MPEP § 2106.03(II) recites:
[T]he [broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)] of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a “machine-readable medium” were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to a “computer readable storage medium.” Claim 19, line 1. The broadest reasonable interpretation of such a medium can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. The Examiner suggests amending claim 19, line 1 to include a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium.”
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): “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 MPEP recites “[d]uring examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected.” MPEP § 2173.02(I) (citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” Id. See also id. § 2173.05(e)(discussing indefiniteness arising for terms lacking proper antecedent basis).
Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 are rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular,
(i) claim 8, line 1, “QoS” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the limitation refers to quality operating system, quality of service, or another meaning.
It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation refers to quality of service. See MPEP § 2173.06 (reciting “When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important that the examiner state on the record how the claim term or phrase is being interpreted with respect to the prior art applied in the rejection.”; emphasis omitted).
(ii) claim 8, lines 1–3, “sending one or more requests to a QoS configuration function to synchronize QoS settings of network connections used by the first AC or the second AC when communicating with respective EASs” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to which limitation occurs “when communicating with respective EASs”—(a) the sending the one or more requests or (b) the synchronizing the QoS settings,
It is assumed for examination purposes that the synchronizing the QoS settings occurs when communicating with respective EASs.
Claim 17 by analogy.
(iii) claim 9, lines 1–3, “sending one or more requests to a communication pattern configuration function to synchronize scheduled communication times when the first AC or the second AC communicates with their respective EASs” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to which limitation occurs “when the first AC or the second AC communicates with their respective EASs”—(a) the sending the one or more requests or (b) the synchronizing scheduled communication times.
It is assumed for examination purposes that the synchronizing the QoS settings occurs when synchronizing scheduled communication times.
Claim 18 by analogy.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Karam and Gupta
Claims 1, 10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Karam et al. (US 2011/0069642 A1; filed Sept. 23, 2009) in view of Gupta et al. (US 2009/0023455 A1; filed July 16, 2007).
Regarding claim 1, while Karam teaches a method performed by a first edge enabler server (EES) (fig. 1, item 102), the method comprising:
receiving a first request (“the application server 102 receives requests” at ¶ 13; fig. 2, item 206) to establish a multi-user session (fig. 1, item 108) between a first application client (AC) and a second AC (“the application server 102 receives requests from potential conference participants who wish to participate in the main conference 108” at ¶ 13), wherein the first request comprises multi-user session information (“the requests arrive in the form of data streams, where data contained in the streams comprises at least one of: audio data or visual data” at ¶ 13);
establishing the multi-user session between the first AC and the second AC, wherein establishing the multi-user session comprises sending one or more requests (“assign the requests to the media servers 106 for processing” at ¶ 14; “forward requests from the application server 102 to one of the media servers 106” at ¶ 14; fig. 2, item 208) to different edge application servers (EASs) (fig. 1, items 1061–n), wherein the different EASs comprises a first EAS (fig. 1, item 1061) and a second EAS (fig. 1, item 1062);
wherein the different EASs provide a multi-user session service (“process data streams from the user associated with the request, via the feeder conference 110. This processing may include, for example, mixing of audio streams. The media servers 106 . . . are further configured to forward processed data streams to the main conference 108.” at ¶ 15) to the first AC and the second AC;
determining whether the multi-user session (fig. 1, item 108; “collectively provide a main conference 108 in which conference participants can interact” at ¶ 12) has been established; and
sending a first response (“conference participants to be dynamically added to the feeder conferences 110 across the available media servers 106.” at ¶ 18; “provide a main conference 108 in which conference participants can interact.” at ¶ 12; “allows conference participants to connect to the main conference 108.” at ¶ 13; fig. 2, item 218) to the first request, wherein the first response comprises an indication that the multi-user session has been established between the first AC and the second AC,
Karam does not teach receiving one or more responses from the different EASs, wherein the one or more responses comprises one or more indications of whether the different EASs agree to provide the multi-user session service (and thus the determining whether the multi-user session has been established is based on the one or more responses from the different EASs).
Gupta teaches receiving one or more responses from different nodes (fig. 1, item 121a–c), wherein the one or more responses comprises one or more indications of whether the different nodes agree to provide a service (“The response message indicates the local node is able to provide the particular service” at ¶ 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Karam to include receiving one or more responses from the different EASs, wherein the one or more responses comprises one or more indications of whether the different EASs agree to provide the multi-user session service (and thus the determining whether the multi-user session has been established is based on the one or more responses from the different EASs) as taught by Gupta to provide “load balancing for servers in a communications network,” thereby enhancing system performance and reliability by ensuring optimal resource utilization. Gupta ¶ 2.
Regarding claim 10, Karam teaches wherein the different EASs (fig. 1, items 1061–n) support a same type of service (fig. 1, item 108).
Regarding claim 12, Karam teaches an apparatus (fig. 1, item 102; fig. 3, item 300) comprising: a processor (fig. 3, item 302); and a memory (fig. 3, item 304) coupled with the processor, the memory storing executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to effectuate operations to perform operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 12.
Regarding claim 19, Karam teaches a computer readable storage medium (fig. 3, item 304) storing computer executable instructions that when executed by a computing device (fig. 1, item 102; fig. 3, item 300) cause the computing device to effectuate operations comprising operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 19.
Karam, Gupta, and Agnel
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Karam in view of Gupta, and in further view of Agnel et al. (US 2025/0351012 A1; PCT filed May 6, 2022).
Regarding claim 2, while Karam teaches wherein the first request is received from conference participants (“the application server 102 receives requests from potential conference participants who wish to participate in the main conference 108” at ¶ 13),
Karam does not teach conference participants being an enabler client (EEC) or a third EAS.
Agnel teaches an EEC (“an edge enabler client (EEC)” at ¶ 95) or a third EAS.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Karam’s conference participants to be an EEC as taught by Agnel to “provide improved support for a broad range of desired wireless communication characteristics.” Agnel ¶ 4.
Regarding claim 13, claim 2 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 2 are equally applicable to claim 13.
Karam, Gupta, and Saxena
Claims 3, 4, 6, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Karam in view of Gupta, and in further view of Saxena et al. (US 2020/0409947 A1; filed June 25, 2019).
Regarding claim 3, Karam does not teach wherein the multi-user session information comprises one or more AC identifiers.
Dirac teaches one or more AC identifiers (“client identifier C1” at ¶ 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Karam’s multi-user session information to comprise one or more AC identifiers as taught by Saxena for “improving the efficiency of data processing.” Saxena ¶ 1.
Regarding claim 4, Karam does not teach wherein the multi-user session information comprises a connection bandwidth.
Dirac teaches a connection bandwidth (“network bandwidth” at ¶ 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Karam’s multi-user session information to comprise a connection bandwidth as taught by Saxena for “improving the efficiency of data processing.” Saxena ¶ 1.
Regarding claim 6, Karam does not teach wherein the multi-user session information comprises a scheduled communication time.
Dirac teaches a scheduled communication time (“job J1 may be scheduled for execution at time t2” at ¶ 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Karam’s multi-user session information to comprise a scheduled communication time as taught by Saxena for “improving the efficiency of data processing.” Saxena ¶ 1.
Regarding claims 14, 15, and 20, claims 4, 6, and 3, respectively, recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 4, 6, and 3 are equally applicable to, respectively, claims 14, 15, and 20.
Karam, Gupta, and Bocharov
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Karam in view of Gupta, and in further view of Bocharov et al. (US 2010/0235528 A1; filed Mar. 16, 2009).
Regarding claim 5, Karam does not teach wherein the multi-user session information comprises a request rate.
Bocharov teaches a request rate (“request rate” at ¶ 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Karam’s multi-user session information to comprise a request rate as taught by Bocharov “to determine whether the client is requesting data too fast or too slow, so that the client can adapt its request rate to a cadence in tune with the rate at which the server is receiving encoder data.” Bocharov ¶ 7.
Karam, Gupta, and Gautam
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Karam in view of Gupta, and in further view of Gautam et al. (US 2022/0295353 A1; PCT filed July 31, 2020).
Regarding claim 7, while Karam teaches further comprising sending one or more requests (“the application server 102 receives requests” at ¶ 13; fig. 2, item 206) to the application server (fig. 1, item 102),
Karam does not teach the application server being a network slice management function to synchronize network slices used by the first AC or the second AC for communication with respective EASs (intended use in italics).
Gautam teaches a network slice management function (“send the request to the Network Slice Management Function (NSMF)” at ¶ 38; “sends the request to Network Slice Management Function (NSMF)” at ¶ 54) to synchronize network slices used by the first AC or the second AC for communication with respective EASs (intended use in italics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Karam’s application server to be a network slice management function to synchronize network slices used by the first AC or the second AC for communication with respective EASs (intended use in italics) as taught by Gautam “to allocate the required resources to be assigned to the communication service.” Gautam ¶ 54.
Regarding claim 16, claim 7 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 7 are equally applicable to claim 16.
Karam, Gupta, and Ukita
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Karam in view of Gupta, and in further view of Ukita et al. (US 2011/0110235 A1; PCT filed Dec. 23, 2010).
Regarding claim 8, while Karam teaches further comprising sending one or more requests (“the application server 102 receives requests” at ¶ 13; fig. 2, item 206) to the application server (fig. 1, item 102),
Karam does not teach the application server being a QoS configuration function to synchronize QoS settings of network connections used by the first AC or the second AC when communicating with respective EASs (intended use in italics).
Ukita teaches a QoS configuration function (“a QoS configuration function” at ¶ 11) to synchronize QoS settings of network connections used by a first AC or a second AC when1 communicating with respective EASs (intended use in italics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Karam’s application server to be a QoS configuration function to synchronize QoS settings of network connections used by the first AC or the second AC when communicating with respective EASs (intended use in italics) as taught by Ukita “to prevent disposal or delay of a packet.” Ukita ¶ 3.
Regarding claim 17, claim 8 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 8 are equally applicable to claim 17.2
Karam, Gupta, and Gao
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Karam in view of Gupta, and in further view of Gao et al. (US 2015/0057006 A1; PCT filed May 16, 2014).
Regarding claim 9, while Karam teaches further comprising sending one or more requests (“the application server 102 receives requests” at ¶ 13; fig. 2, item 206) to the application server (fig. 1, item 102),
Karam does not teach the application server being a communication pattern configuration function to synchronize scheduled communication times when the first AC or the second AC communicates with their respective EASs (intended use in italics).
Gao teaches a communication pattern configuration function (“communication pattern configuration” at ¶ 27) to synchronize scheduled communication times when3 the first AC or the second AC communicates with their respective EASs (intended use in italics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Karam’s application server to be a QoS configuration function to synchronize scheduled communication times when the first AC or the second AC communicates with their respective EASs (intended use in italics) as taught by Gao to “improve the resource usage efficiency.” Gao ¶ 22.
Regarding claim 18, claim 9 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 9 are equally applicable to claim 18.4
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of base claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-9729347-B2; US-10892975-B2; US-20150379424-A1; US-20220353733-A1; US-20110252127-A1; US-20100134589-A1; US-8374106-B2; US-20090268008-A1; and WO-2023220047-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 Even assuming the synchronizing method-step (claim 8, lines 2–3) is not intended use, the synchronizing method-step is conditional and, therefore, need not be satisfied to meet claim 8. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3–5 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding that in a method claim, a step reciting a condition precedent does not need to be performed if the condition precedent is not met) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Ex%20parte%20Schulhauser%202016_04_28.pdf; last visited Feb. 13, 2026); see also MPEP § 2111.04(II) (citing Schulhauser).
2 The Examiner notes Schulhauser does not apply to apparatus claim 17. See n. 1 supra.
3 Even assuming the synchronizing method-step (claim 9, lines 2–3) is not intended use, the synchronizing method-step is conditional and, therefore, need not be satisfied to meet claim 9. See Schulhauser at *3–5 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016); see also MPEP § 2111.04(II) (citing Schulhauser).
4 The Examiner notes Schulhauser does not apply to apparatus claim 18. See n. 3 supra.