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 .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant filed amendment(s) to the claim(s) on 06/01/2026 to remedy the rejection(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page(s) 6-8, filed 06/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 14 & 20 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the 35 USC 103 Rejection detailed below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-12, 14, 18 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2011/0055921 A1) and further in view of Cassidy et al. (US 2012/0030326 A1).
Re Claim 1, 14 & 20, Narayanaswamy teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, at a server, that at least a threshold number of connection requests have been received from a plurality of different client devices; (Narayanaswamy; FIG. 1-8; Background, Summary, ¶ [0031]-[0033], [0038]-[0042], [0058]-[0084]; The monitoring of a number of incoming connection requests and determines whether the number or rate of connections exceed a connection threshold.)
Narayanaswamy does not explicitly suggest predicting an amount of time expected to elapse before the server is able to service the connection requests; calculating a retry distribution for the plurality of client devices, wherein the retry distribution indicates a delayed time after which one or more of the plurality of client devices are to send retry messages to the server based on the predicted amount of time; and indicating, to the one or more client devices, that the one or more client devices are to send connection requests according to the delayed time specified in the calculated retry distribution.
However, in analogous art, Cassidy teaches predicting an amount of time expected to elapse before the server is able to service the connection requests; (Cassidy; FIG. 1-7; Background, Summary, ¶ [0025]-[0052]; Delay time prediction module that predicts the amount of time before the server is able to service the connection requests.)
calculating a retry distribution for the plurality of client devices, (Cassidy; FIG. 1-7; Background, Summary, ¶ [0018]-[0036]; The embodiment(s) calculates a retry after delay for the client devices.)
wherein the retry distribution indicates a delayed time after which one or more of the plurality of client devices are to send retry messages to the server based on the predicted amount of time; and (Cassidy; FIG. 1-7; Background, Summary, ¶ [0018]-[0036]; A delayed time indicates a delayed time associated with the predicted time.)
indicating, to the one or more client devices, that the one or more client devices are to send connection requests according to the delayed time specified in the calculated retry distribution. (Cassidy; FIG. 1-7; Background, Summary, ¶ [0018]-[0036]; Connection requestion associated with the delayed times specified in the retry calculations.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Narayanaswamy in view of Cassidy to determine connection requests between a device and a server for the reasons of servicing requests between a server and a client device. (Cassidy Abstract)
Re Claim 2, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the calculated delayed time is based on at least one health indicator of the server. (Cassidy; FIG. 1-7; Background, Summary, ¶ [0047]-[0055]; A calculation of delays is based on server load.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Narayanaswamy in view of Cassidy to determine connection requests between a device and a server for the reasons of servicing requests between a server and a client device. (Cassidy Abstract)
Re Claim 3, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the calculated delayed time is calculated for each server and is based on at least one of:
central processing unit (CPU) availability, memory availability, or network bandwidth availability. (Cassidy; FIG. 1-7; Background, Summary, ¶ [0016]-[0020], [0023]-[0030]; Calculated delays is based on processor usage, network usage and database usage.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Narayanaswamy in view of Cassidy to determine connection requests between a device and a server for the reasons of servicing requests between a server and a client device. (Cassidy Abstract)
Re Claim 4, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, whereindetermining that at least the threshold number of connection requests have been received includes identifying at least a threshold number of connection requests that are initiated by users at the respective client devices have been received. (Narayanaswamy; FIG. 1-8; Background, Summary, ¶ [0031]-[0033], [0038]-[0042], [0058]-[0084]; A threshold number of connection request, identifying the related number of connection requests which are initiated by users.)
Re Claim 5, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the calculated retry distribution adds jitter to the retry messages received from the client devices. (Cassidy; FIG. 1-3; ¶ [0016]-[0018], [0025]-[0026], [0030]-[0044]; The adding of delay time (jitter) to the retry messages received from the client devices.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Narayanaswamy in view of Cassidy to determine connection requests between a device and a server for the reasons of servicing requests between a server and a client device. (Cassidy Abstract)
Re Claim 6, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the retry distribution is calculated to include a lowest possible backoff time based on current server operating conditions. (Cassidy; FIG. 1; Background, Summary; Variable related back-off times.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Narayanaswamy in view of Cassidy to determine connection requests between a device and a server for the reasons of servicing requests between a server and a client device. (Cassidy Abstract)
Re Claim 9, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein receiving at least the threshold number of connection requests includes identifying at least a threshold number of connection requests that are initiated automatically by the respective client devices. (Narayanaswamy; FIG. 1-8; Background, Summary, ¶ [0031]-[0033], [0038]-[0042], [0058]-[0084]; Threshold connection, number of connection related requests.)
Re Claim 10, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising instructing one or more of the client devices to store state data indicating a last retry time. (Cassidy; FIG. 1-7; Background, Summary, ¶ [0018]-[0036]; The embodiment(s) calculates a retry after delay for the client devices and the storing of related data.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Narayanaswamy in view of Cassidy to determine connection requests between a device and a server for the reasons of servicing requests between a server and a client device. (Cassidy Abstract)
Re Claim 11, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the connection requests correspond to a plurality of different message types. (Narayanaswamy; FIG. 1-5; Background, Summary, ¶ [0032]-[0043]; Message types such as functions, URL, protocol fields, entries and various other identifiers that corresponds to message transactions.)
Re Claim 12, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein each of the different message types is associated with a different time window for retry distribution. (Narayanaswamy; FIG. 1-8; Background, Summary, ¶ [0031]-[0033], [0038]-[0042], [0058]-[0084]; Monitoring different transaction types over time intervals or time ticks, time related thresholds and state timers.)
Re Claim 18, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the system of claim 14, further comprising sending control signals to a specified client device indicating that the specified client device is prevented from sending connection requests. (Narayanaswamy; FIG. 1-5; Background, Summary, ¶ [0029]-[0040]; Blocking/preventing connections.)
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2011/0055921 A1), in view of Cassidy et al. (US 2012/0030326 A1) and further in view of Weissman et al. (US 2023/0040592 A1).
Re Claim 7, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, yet does not explicitly suggest wherein the connection requests received from the plurality of different client devices are received while provisioning a live event at the server.
However, in analogous art, Weissman teaches wherein the connection requests received from the plurality of different client devices are received while provisioning a live event at the server. (Weissman; FIG. 1-4; R [0009]-[0018], [0022]-[0030]; Connect request to a live broadcast/stream/event.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Narayanaswamy-Cassidy in view of Weissman to connect to a live broadcast for the reasons of identifying, connecting and preserving a media stream connection to a server. (Weissman Abstract)
Re Claim 8, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy-Weissman discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein one or more of the connection requests are generated by users manually re-starting the stream upon an associated client device of the plurality of different client devices losing audio signal or video signal during the live event. (Weissman; FIG. 1-4; R [0009]-[0018], [0022]-[0030]; A user restarting a stream/broadcast/live event due to a loss of connection.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Narayanaswamy-Cassidy in view of Weissman to connect to a live broadcast for the reasons of identifying, connecting and preserving a media stream connection to a server. (Weissman Abstract)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2011/0055921 A1), in view of Cassidy et al. (US 2012/0030326 A1) and further in view of and further in view of MAHBOD et al. (US 2015/0207823 A1).
Re Claim 13, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 12, yet does not explicitly suggest wherein the different time windows for retry distribution are specific to individual media items.
However, in analogous art, MAHBOD teaches wherein the different time windows for retry distribution are specific to individual media items. (MAHBOD; FIG. 1-5; Background, Summary, ¶ [0019]-[0023], [0029], [0041]-[0060]; Different times related to the different retry connection of requested multimedia content.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Narayanaswamy-Cassidy in view of MAHBOD to receive various types of connection messages for the reason of improving client-server communication performance associated with user connection requests. (MAHBOD Abstract)
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2011/0055921 A1), in view of Cassidy et al. (US 2012/0030326 A1) and further in view of Rawal et al. (US A1).
Re Claim 15, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the system of claim 14, yet does not explicitly suggest further comprising: determining an error rate for data transferred between the server and a specified client device; and assigning a delayed time for the retry distribution that is based on the determined error rate.
However, in analogous art, Rawal teaches further comprising:
determining an error rate for data transferred between the server and a specified client device; and (Rawal; FIG. 1-4; Background, Summary, ¶ [0103]-[0107]; An error rate for data transfer between the server and the device.)
assigning a delayed time for the retry distribution that is based on the determined error rate. (Rawal; FIG. 1-4; Background, Summary, ¶ [0103]-[0107]; A retry based on the error tolerance.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Narayanaswamy-Cassidy in view of Rawal to determine error rates for the reasons of determining QoS related to error rates. (Rawal Background & Summary)
Re Claim 16, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy -Rawal discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the delayed time for the retry distribution is based on how many retries can occur while staying below the specified error rate. (Rawal; FIG. 1-4; Background, Summary, ¶ [0103]-[0107]; Retry values associated with error rates.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Narayanaswamy-Cassidy in view of Rawal to determine error rates for the reasons of determining QoS related to error rates. (Rawal Background & Summary)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2011/0055921 A1), in view of Cassidy et al. (US 2012/0030326 A1) and further in view of Mignot et al. (US 2010/0296466 A1).
Re Claim 17, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the system of claim 14, yet does not explicitly suggest further comprising: conducting a simulation that simulates network traffic between the server and at least one client device; and calculating the delayed time for the retry distribution based on results of the simulation.
However, in analogous art, Mignot teaches further comprising:
conducting a simulation that simulates network traffic between the server and at least one client device; and (Mignot; FIG. 1; ¶ [0005]-[0036], [0124]-[0133]; Network traffic simulation between a device and a server.)
calculating the delayed time for the retry distribution based on results of the simulation. (Mignot; FIG. 1; ¶ [0005]-[0036], [0124]-[0133]; Delay based on simulations.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Narayanaswamy-Cassidy in view of Mignot to simulate network traffic for the reasons of optimization and estimating delay transmissions. (Mignot Abstract)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2011/0055921 A1), in view of Cassidy et al. (US 2012/0030326 A1) and further in view of further in view of HOLLINGSHEAD, ALAN (JP 2020531956 A1).
Re Claim 19, Narayanaswamy-Cassidy discloses the system of claim 14, yet does not explicitly suggest wherein at least one type of connection request is denied at the server until a different type of connection request is being fulfilled at the server.
However, in analogous art, HOLLINGSHEAD teaches wherein at least one type of connection request is denied at the server until a different type of connection request is being fulfilled at the server. (HOLLINGSHEAD; FIG. 1-8; Page(s) 3-6; Deny requests based on types, servicing requests based on types.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Narayanaswamy-Cassidy in view of HOLLINGSHEAD to block certain type of requests for the reason of managing requests between client devices and servers. (HOLLINGSHEAD Abstract)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 EST.
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 R 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights