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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 recites the limitation "takes into consideration peering relationship" in lines 2 (as similarly recited in claim 13); however, it is unclear whether the Applicant intended to recite a completely separate peering relationship from claim 2 (and claim 12), as the current claim dependency status warrants, or whether the Applicant intended to recite the same peering relationship from claim 2 (and claim 12).
If the Applicant intended the former interpretation, the Examiner recommends revising the claim limitation to recite, “takes into consideration a network peering relationship” and similarly for claim 13.
If the Applicant intended the latter interpretation, the Examiner recommends revising the claim to recite, “The method of claim 2the network peering relationship ...” and similarly for claim 13.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the former interpretation to be the Applicant’s intended recitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1, 4-5, 10-11, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fatula [US20070299954A1].
Regarding claim 1, Fatula discloses:
A method for application hosting and network connection, the method comprising:
receiving a request from a first communication network for an interactive network connection with an application hosted in a second communication network (Fatula, [0055], “The authentication service 1257 determines, based on a table, what VPN network entry or access points the user is authorized for connection and the authentication service 1258 of 1260 generates the list of these VPN network entry points/access points (step 1115).” and Fatula, [0058], “In another embodiment, the VPN authentication service 1257 requests each VPN entry point server from the list of authorized VPN entry point gateway servers e.g. 450, 460, to determine the response time to the Client Workstation 3500.”);
selecting, among a plurality of network entry points belonging to the second communication network and one or more third communication networks, an optimal target network entry point for the interactive network connection according to network-probing measurements performed to quantify communication latency between the first communication network and the application in the second communication network via each of the plurality of the network entry points (Fatula, [0063]-[0064], “For example, using the shortest time for Client to VPN entry point server indicates that Case B is the best choice. Simple entry point optimization can produce significant reductions in the round trip latency. However, using data from the Server within the private network that had the highest frequency of contact or had the most amount of data transferred in addition to that from the simple entry point optimization demonstrates that further gains are possible e.g. Case A is faster. … These statistics are collected and used to adaptively modify the selection algorithm of VPN entry point servers having the shortest response time and of the servers within the private network having the shortest latency time as well. This data is used to preferentially select entry points having the best probability to provide the lowest latency time for the servers that the client Workstation contacts. This self tuning of the selection process is an autonomic control.”); and
establishing the interactive network connection between the first communication network and the application in the second communication network (Fatula, [0055], “FIG. 10 illustrates a process, according to the present invention, for forming a connection between Workstation 3500 in San Jose, Calif. and Workstation 456 in Company A 451 San Jose, Calif. location.”).
Regarding claim 4, Fatula discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein
a private direct traffic routing path is established between each of the one or more third communication networks and the second communication network (Fatula, [0063]-[0064], See the cited portions above.).
Regarding claim 5, Fatula discloses:
The method of claim 4, wherein
the first communication network, the second communication network, and each of the one or more third communication networks are provisioned by separate Internet Service Providers (ISPs) (Fatula, [0009], “FIG. 2 illustrates local ISP's ISP's 120, 122, 143 and 158 in more detail. FIG. 2 also illustrates “Telco, Cable High Speed Multiplexed Lines” which represent any of the communication media shown in FIG. 1 leading from workstations and phones 100-103, 130, 133, 136, and 150-152 to local ISP's POPs 120, 122, 143 and 158.”).
Regarding claim 10, Fatula discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising, after establishing the interactive network connection,
continuing probing the communication latency between the first communication network and the application in the second communication network via the plurality of network entry points to determine whether to switch the interactive network connection between the first communication network and the second communication network to a lower latency network entry point other than the optimal target network entry point (Fatula, [0064], “In another embodiment of the present invention, non-use periods of the VPN tunnel are detected and the tunnel is terminated and switched to an alternate VPN entry point server. Statistics are gathered on round trip latency for Servers accessed on the private network which were frequently contacted or which had heavy amounts of data transfer by the Workstation on prior connections. After the data has been collected, the VPN is again terminated and another entry point server is contacted. This continues until use resumes on the workstation or until sufficient statistics have been collected.” Also see citations above.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatula and Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC [US20080304421A1] (hereinafter, “MTL”).
Regarding claim 2, Fatula discloses the method of claim 1, but Fatula does not disclose the first communication network has a network peering relationship with at least one of the third communication networks but has no network peering relationship with the second communication network.
MTL, however, discloses:
the first communication network has a network peering relationship with at least one of the third communication networks but has no network peering relationship with the second communication network (MTL, [0004], “The internet network infrastructure enables a host of network topologies such as client/server, peer-to-peer, or hybrid architectures.”; MTL, [0028], “Various methods and systems are described for constructing, modifying, maintaining, and using prediction trees to model inter-nodal network performance measures. An inter-nodal network performance measure describes some aspect of network performance as it relates to a pair of networked devices.”; MTL, [0030]-[0031], “Some nodes of the tree are joined by edges representing latency times between the nodes. In the example, the latency between computing device A represented by leaf node 201 and interior virtual node y 209 is 3, where any convenient units for latency, such as milliseconds, for example, may be used. For purposes of this discussion, the edge between computing device A and virtual node y is denoted Ay and we say that the length Ay is 3. In the example, the length By is 2, Cz is 3, Dz is 1, yx is 4, and so on. Lengths are symmetric. That is, the length Ax is the same as the length xA. Using the example prediction tree 200, the latency between two leaf nodes is estimated by finding the total length of the edges in the path joining the two leaf nodes. For example, the latency between devices A 201 and B 202 is computed by finding the length of the path AyB, which is Ay plus yB or 3+2=5. As another example, the latency between E and G is estimated to be the length of the path EqpsG=Eq+qp+ps+sG=7+1+6+5=19. In this manner, the latency between any two leaf nodes in the tree, i.e., between any two computing devices on the network, may be estimated.”; MTL, [0046], “Each leaf node stores the state of all of its ancestors and the path from the leaf node to the root of the tree. For example, referring to the latency prediction tree 200 of FIG. 2, the latency between nodes A 201 and C 203 as follows. The state of A 201 includes an ordered list its ancestors: y, x, r. The state of C 203 includes an ordered list of its ancestors: z, x, r. The two lists of ancestors may be compared and a first common ancestor identified. In this example, the first common ancestor is x. Thus, the path in the prediction tree 200 from A 201 to C 203 runs from A 201 to x 213 to C 203.” The devices, or nodes, of the network may not be immediately connected. The relationship between the nodes may be a peer-to-peer relationship, or have no peer relationship.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the first communication network has a network peering relationship with at least one of the third communication networks but has no network peering relationship with the second communication network, as taught by MTL to the system of Fatula, as it would allow the system to determine the optimal entry point based on the latency estimation, as specified by the tenant application.
Regarding claim 3, Fatula discloses the method of claim 1, which includes selecting the optimal target network entry point (as cited above), but Fatula does not disclose peering relationships between the other communication networks.
MTL, however, discloses:
selecting the optimal target network entry point additionally takes into consideration peering relationship between the first communication network and the one or more third communication networks and between the first communication network and the second communication network (See citations within claim 2 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose additionally takes into consideration peering relationship between the first communication network and the one or more third communication networks and between the first communication network and the second communication network, as taught by MTL to the system of Fatula, as it would allow the system to determine the optimal entry point based on the latency estimation, as specified by the tenant application.
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatula and an article entitled “Peer-to-Peer Architecture for Massively Multiplayer Online Games” by Jeppesen et al. (hereinafter “Jeppesen”).
Regarding claim 6, Fatula discloses the method of claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose the application comprising a multiplayer interactive game.
Jeppesen, however, discloses:
the application comprises a multiplayer interactive game (Jeppesen, pg. 1, para 1, “In this chapter we will identify various factors that are important for games, Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs), and multiplayer in general.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the application comprises a multiplayer interactive game, as taught by Jeppesen to the system of Fatula, as it would allow the system to determine an optimal entry point for a plurality of players of a game, as specified by the tenant application.
Regarding claim 7, Fatula/Jeppesen discloses:
The method of claim 6, wherein:
the method is performed by a game lobby server for the multiplayer interactive game (Jeppesen, pg. 44, para 3, “There would also have to be some system to enable players to find active central nodes, so that they may enter the network. This could be accomplished by a lobby mechanism seen in many multiplayer games today: The node would connect to a central, well-known, list server and announce its availability. Connecting players then retrieve a list from here before choosing a central node.”); and
the request is initiated from a game client via the first communication network to the game lobby server (See citations above.).
Regarding claim 8, Fatula/Jeppesen discloses:
The method of claim 7, further comprising:
generating a list of network addresses of the plurality of network entry points based on a requesting network address associated with the game client in the first communication network (Jeppesen, pg. 33, para 7, “The Central Node is the manager and founder of the entire network. The central node has all the functionalities of a supernode, but may also act as a network entry point, persistence manager and final authority. As entry point the central node supplies information about the network to new nodes and keeps a list of nodes, which can be called upon to create new supernodes.”);
communicating the list of the network addresses to the game client for the game client to perform the network-probing measurements (See citation directly above.); and
receiving the network-probing measurements from the game client prior to selecting the optimal target network entry point (See previously provided citations.).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatula/Jeppesen as applied to claims 6-8 and 16-18 above, and further in view of MTL.
Regarding claim 9, Fatula/Jeppesen discloses the method of claim 7, but Fatula/Jeppesen does not explicitly disclose the ability to determine that the game client cannot perform network-probing measurements.
MTL, however, discloses:
determining that the game client is not capable of performing the network-probing measurements (See citations within claim 2 above. The network devices may not have a measurement performed directly. The measurement must be predicted based on other node connections.); and
initiating and performing the network-probing measurements from the second communication network to the first communication network (See citations within claim 2 above. The network devices may not have a measurement performed directly. The measurement must be predicted based on other node connections.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose not being capable of performing the network-probing measurements, as taught by MTL to the system of Fatula in view of Jeppesen, as it would allow the system to determine a different entry point for the user device to connect to the network, as specified by the tenant application.
Regarding claims 11-20, the claims share similar limitations to claims 1-10. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claims 1-10 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm ET.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights