DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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.
Claims 38-44 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 27-37 are allowable. Claims 38-44 are rejected. Applicant can cancel or amend claims 38-44 to match the limitations of allowable claim 1.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of continuation of patent application 18/176,000 which claims benefits to parent application 17/493,510 which claims benefits of parent application 14/578,579 which claims the benefits of provisional patent application filed 9/15/2014.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 02/12/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 38-44 are being 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 38 'interface configured to' invokes 35 U.S.C, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Claims 39-44 are rejected as being dependents of claim 38.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 38-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadallah et al. (US 20120311126 A1) hereinafter Jadallah in view of Lin et al. (US7782767 B1) hereinafter Lin;
Regarding claim 38: Jadallah teaches an apparatus, comprising:
an interface (Fig 1, see element 202), which is configured to receive a media stream that is streamed over a network at a given media bit-rate in a sequence (¶0044 – see network-based QoE system 100 may monitor all media between a set of subscribers' devices 10 and media streaming servers 14. By monitoring multiple devices and servers, the QoE system 100 may be able to identify and isolate problems related to shared resources, such as congested network links or slow Content Delivery Network. ¶0045 - QoE system 100 is a network based system, the QoE system 100 is intended to be configured to correlate network packets into groups that represent media streams in real time from a large amount of network traffic Further see ¶0041 intended to be able to analyze the traffic to determine attributes of the media and video and to track bit rates); and
a processor (¶0050 – see each module may be operatively connected, via for example internal cabling, to a processor 216 that coordinates activity among the modules), which is configured to estimate respective data volumes of the sequence (¶0071 – see calculating QoE at the per-media and per-subscriber level by maintaining a history of changes in media flow properties, and grouping these properties for the same media content watched in the same time frame by a subscriber in the form of a media session further see ¶0018 see QoE event handler is configured to detect at least one of the events from the group of buffer stalls, media start latency, media streaming restarts and bit rate transitions and the metric measurement module is configured to measure at least one of the group of average number and duration of buffer stall events, average media start latency, average number of restarts after buffer stall events and average number of bit rate transition events [Examiners note: estimating respective data volumes is interpreted as ]), and to derive the given media bit-rate from the estimated data volumes (¶0072 - see media session record may contain a set of data or facts that measure certain properties of the media, such as encoded bit rate)..
Jadallah does not explicitly teach traffic bursts or one or more traffic bursts
Lin however in the same field of computer networking teaches traffic bursts or one or more traffic bursts (Col 1, lines 35-45 see monitoring a start time for a first packet transferred from a sender, and monitoring an end time for a last packet transferred from the sender. The method also includes determining a total number of bytes transferred from the sender to a receiver, and estimating a network delay. The burst bit rate is then calculated by dividing the total number of bytes transferred by the difference between the end time and the start time plus the estimated network delay)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computer networking at the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teaching of Jadallah for monitor QOE between data streams and the teachings of Lin for monitoring bit rates between traffic bursts to combine the teachings by using burst bit rate monitoring as taught by Lin to monitor the streams of Jadallah. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the results of the combination are predictable because each element in the combination is merely performing the same function it would perform separately. One would be motivated to combine these teachings as doing so would provide overall business parameters and enhanced content delivery to end users.
Regarding claim 39: The already combined references teach the apparatus according to claim 38, wherein estimating the data volumes and deriving the given media bit-rate are performed without decoding content of the media stream (Jadallah ¶0057 see QoE system is intended to be codec agnostic, in that the media stream is recognized and analyzed without regard to the codec used to encode the media stream. The QoE system may parse the container meta-data, which comes independently of the media data that has been encoded with a particular codec. By parsing the container meta-data, the QoE system may support a smaller number of containers to recognize media encoded with any codec).
Regarding claim 40: The already combined references teach apparatus according to claim 38, wherein the media stream is encrypted, and wherein estimating the data volumes and deriving the given media bit-rate are performed without decryption of the media stream (Jadallah ¶0041 see network based QoE system described herein are intended to be able to analyze the traffic to determine attributes of the media and video and to track bit rates without the need to inspect the encrypted media signal itself).
Regarding claim 41: The already combined references teach apparatus according to claim 38, furthermore Lin teaches wherein estimating the data volumes comprises identifying respective start times of the traffic bursts, and distinguishing between the traffic bursts using the identified start times (Jadallah Col 1, lines 35-50 see monitoring a start time for a first packet transferred from a sender, and monitoring an end time for a last packet transferred from the sender. The method also includes determining a total number of bytes transferred from the sender to a receiver, and estimating a network delay. The burst bit rate is then calculated by dividing the total number of bytes transferred by the difference between the end time and the start time plus the estimated network delay).
Regarding claim 42: The already combined references teach apparatus according to claim 38, wherein the traffic convey respective content segments having a predefined playback duration (¶0065 see - first piece of information is the average encoded bit rate. This value describes the average number of bits used to represent a second of real-time playback), and wherein deriving the given media bit-rate comprises, when the media stream is subject to congestion in the network, estimating the given media bit-rate based on the playback duration (Jadallah ¶0065 – see second piece of information is the achieved effective bit rate of the flow containing the video. This bit rate should generally only include the effective bytes or goodput…Further see Jadallah ¶0069 a stream will be delivered using a high bit rate and would stay at the high bit rate for the duration of the playback. However, during periods of congestion the media may have to shift down to a lower bit rate. These shifts or bit rate transitions can be measured and reported on by the QoE event handler 206 by analyzing the media flow and watching a change in bit rate). Lin teaches traffic bursts (see claim 1)
Regarding claim 43: The already combined references teach apparatus according to claim 38, and comprising estimating the data volumes and deriving the given media bit-rate only in response to verifying that the media stream matches an Adaptive Bit-Rate (ABR) traffic pattern (Jadallah ¶0007 – see system for filtering progressive and adaptive media streaming to obtain measures of quality of experience is provided….¶0107 see progressive streaming, which is a special case of adaptive streaming where bit rate is fixed).
Regarding claim 44: The already combined references teach apparatus according to claim 38, wherein deriving the given media bit-rate comprises verifying that the data volumes of the two or more traffic bursts differ from one another by no more than a predefined difference (Jadallah ¶0093 see QoE is a relative quality measure derived from comparing the aggregated metrics against a threshold value or level such as the maximum allowed QoE metrics in the network).
Conclusion
References are cited not only for their quoted language but for all that they teach.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atta Khan whose telephone number is 571-270-7364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 09:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (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://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.
/ATTA KHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449