.
1. Claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 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 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
2. Claims 1-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 and 22-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,460 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant application claim 1-30 are anticipated by patent claims 1-20 and 22-30.
Claims 1-2 of the above patent recites every element of claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 2 of the above patent recites every element of claim 2 of the instant application.
Claim 3 of the above patent recites every element of claim 3 of the instant application.
Claim 4 of the above patent recites every element of claim 4 of the instant application.
Claim 5 of the above patent recites every element of claim 5 of the instant application.
Claims 1 and 6 of the above patent recites every element of claim 6 of the instant application.
Claim 7 of the above patent recites every element of claim 7 of the instant application.
Claim 8 of the above patent recites every element of claim 8 of the instant application.
Claim 9 of the above patent recites every element of claim 9 of the instant application.
Claim 10 of the above patent recites every element of claim 10 of the instant application.
Claim 11 of the above patent recites every element of claim 12 of the instant application.
Claim 13 of the above patent recites every element of claim 13 of the instant application.
Claim 14 of the above patent recites every element of claim 14 of the instant application.
Claim 15 of the above patent recites every element of claim 15 of the instant application.
Claims 16-17 of the above patent recites every element of claim 16 of the instant application.
Claim 17 of the above patent recites every element of claim 17 of the instant application.
Claim 18 of the above patent recites every element of claim 18 of the instant application.
Claim 19 of the above patent recites every element of claim 19 of the instant application.
Claim 20 of the above patent recites every element of claim 20 of the instant application.
Claim 16 of the above patent recites every element of claim 21 of the instant application.
Claim 22 of the above patent recites every element of claim 22 of the instant application.
Claim 23 of the above patent recites every element of claim 23 of the instant application.
Claim 24 of the above patent recites every element of claim 24 of the instant application.
Claim 25 of the above patent recites every element of claim 25 of the instant application.
Claim 26 of the above patent recites every element of claim 26 of the instant application.
Claim 27 of the above patent recites every element of claim 27 of the instant application.
Claim 28 of the above patent recites every element of claim 28 of the instant application.
Claim 29 of the above patent recites every element of claim 29 of the instant application.
Claim 30 of the above patent recites every element of claim 30 of the instant application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 and 22-30 of the above patent are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of claims 1-30 of the instant application. It has been held that a generic invention is anticipated by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
3. Claims 1-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No.10,979,480 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant application claim 1-30 are anticipated by patent claims 1-30.
Claims 1-30 of the above patent contain(s) every element of claims 1-30 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the instant application. Claim(s) of the instant application therefore is/are not patentably distinct from the earlier patent claim(s) and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
4. Claim(s) 1-6, 10-13, 15, 16-21, 25-28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh et al. (hereafter, “Singh”), US 2018/0109565 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Singh teaches a method for identifying a source of a problem associated with at least one streaming media session between a plurality of communicating entities (i.e., suggest a temporary capacity bottleneck, page 9 paragraph [0238]), the method comprising the steps of collecting, by at least one reporting entity, a plurality of observation reports from a plurality of monitoring entities (i.e., collect data of observations from other entities, page 3 paragraph [0075]), each observation report comprising information pertaining to one or more anomalous events associated with the at least one streaming media session observed by the monitoring entity providing the observation report (i.e., the plurality of observations are correlated by deriving information related to the at least one media stream…derived information ,such as packets burst or loss burst, can be used to correlate observations pertaining to a same event, page 9 paragraph [0236] and page 10 paragraph [0268]);
determining a size of at least one window, based at least in part on one or more markers in the plurality of observation reports (i.e., the window may be defined as 20 consecutive packet sequences, 100 consecutive packet sequences, page 10 paragraph [0271]);
analyzing the plurality of observation reports occurring within the at least one window of the determined size to determine a correlation between a plurality of anomalous events within the at least one window across the plurality of observation reports (i.e., processing a given set of pre-processed observations that fall inside the window, and determining correlated events pertaining the given set of pre-processed observations, page 10 paragraphs [0628]- [0270]);
identifying a source of a problem encountered during the at least one streaming media session based upon the determined correlation (i.e., observations are linked to each other and inferences are drawn from the correlation, such correlation may suggest that the packet losses observed at two receiving entities …suggest a temporary capacity bottleneck…while the streaming media session is still on-going, page 9 paragraph [0238]); and
sending at least one notification of the source of the problem to at least one of the plurality of monitoring entities (i.e., send at least one notification to at least one of the at least two monitoring entities, page 12 paragraph [0304]).
.
Regarding claim 2, Singh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the size of the at least one window is determined based at least in part on one of the following markers: a time duration, a count of consecutive packet sequence numbers, a count of consecutive frame numbers, a count of consecutive timestamps, a series or count of events, and a series or count of semantic observations (i.e., page 9 paragraph [0234]).
Regarding claim 3, Singh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one window accounts for a waiting time for which the at least one reporting entity waited to collect the plurality of observation reports and comprises one time window, wherein the size of the at least one window is determined based upon at least one of: round-trip delays between the plurality of monitoring entities; one-way delays between the plurality of monitoring entities in opposite directions; round-trip delays from individual monitoring entities to the at least one reporting entity; one-way delays from the individual monitoring entities to the at least one reporting entity; and delays in processing the plurality of observation reports at corresponding monitoring entities and/or at the at least one reporting entity (i.e., page 9 paragraph [0235]).
Regarding claim 4, Singh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the size of the at least one window and the step of analyzing the plurality of observation reports are performed recursively (i.e., a frequency at which a given monitoring entity monitors and records observation, page 12 paragraph [0315]).
Regarding claim 5, Singh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of analyzing the plurality of observation reports comprises detecting a correlation a first anomalous event and a second anomalous event, wherein: the first anomalous event and the second anomalous event both belong to a same category; the first anomalous event and the second anomalous event occur within the at least one window; and the first anomalous event was detected from a first observation report of the plurality of observation reports, and the second anomalous event was detected from a second observation report of the plurality of observation reports (i.e., page 8 paragraph [0229]).
Regarding claim 6, Singh teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the size of the at least one window is determined dynamically based on the category (i.e., page 8 paragraph [0229]).
Regarding claim 10, Singh teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: analyzing at least one of the plurality of observation reports to detect an occurrence of at least one initial event during the at least one streaming media session (i.e., page 10 paragraphs [0248]-[0255]); and triggering, based upon the at least one initial event, the at least one reporting entity to perform the step of determining the size of the at least one window (i.e., page 10 paragraph [0260]).
Regarding claim 11, Singh teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the step of analyzing the plurality of observation reports comprises detecting, in at least one other of the plurality of observation reports, at least one correlated event in future or past with respect to the at least one initial event (i.e., page 10 paragraphs [0048]- [0055])
Regarding claim 12, Singh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of observation reports is analyzed with respect to: a monitoring entity that is a communicating entity transmitting packets to one or more other communicating entities during the at least one streaming media session; or a monitoring entity that is nearest to the communicating entity transmitting the packets (i.e., page 11 paragraph [0282]).
Regarding claim 13, Singh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of observation reports are analyzed based on at least one of the following divisions: per media stream communicated during a given streaming media session; per streaming media session across at least a subset of media streams communicated during a given streaming media session; per media type within a given streaming media session or across a plurality of streaming media sessions; and across a plurality of streaming media sessions (i.e., page 13 paragraph [0333]).
Regarding claim 15, Singh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one network entity is configured to act as a monitoring entity (i.e., page 9 paragraph [0238]).
Regarding claims 16-21, 25-28 and 30, those claims recite a system for performing method claims 1-6, 10-13 and 15, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
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.
5. Claim(s) 14 ad 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, in view of Gallant et al. (hereafter, “Gallant”), US 2015/0222939 A1.
Regarding claims 14 and 29, Singh teaches the method of claim 1.
Singh does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one streaming media session comprises a plurality of streaming media sessions, wherein the method further comprises the step of selecting the plurality of streaming media sessions across which the plurality of observation reports are to be analyzed, the plurality of streaming media sessions being selected using an aggregation scheme.
Gallant teaches wherein the at least one streaming media session comprises a plurality of streaming media sessions, wherein the method further comprises the step of selecting the plurality of streaming media sessions across which the plurality of observation reports are to be analyzed, the plurality of streaming media sessions being selected using an aggregation scheme (i.e., the analytics reporting client allows user to generate reports based on media session data for aggregated media sessions, page 5 paragraph [0048]).
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 the teachings of Singh to comprise a plurality of streaming media sessions, and select the plurality of streaming media sessions across which the plurality of observation reports are to be analyzed, the plurality of streaming media sessions being selected using an aggregation scheme, as taught by Gallant. One would be motivated to do so to provide a greater performance.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OANH DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Maxiflex Mon-Fri 6:00am-5:00pm.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571) 272-4170. 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.
/OANH DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441