DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication filed on 01/16/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gupta et al (US Pub. No. 2021/0377294 herein after “Gupta”).
As per claim 1, Gupta discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a head-mount device (HMD) configured to execute a plurality of applications and processes (Gupta, para[0037,0045-0046,0049] clients 102…may be deployed as…any type and form of computing device…or mobile device; computing environment may execute or operate an application…one or more applications); and
a network-quality testing architecture configured to dynamically adjust an HMD- user's experience based on a real-time network condition (Gupta, para[0044] based upon one or more monitored performance conditions or metrics, application delivery system may be dynamically adjusted, for example periodically or in real-time, to optimize application delivery by servers to clients based upon network environment performance and conditions), wherein:
the network-quality testing architecture includes an edge server, and the edge server is in communication with a streaming client of a co-located server (Gupta, para[0045-0046] clients 102, servers 106 and appliances 200 may be deployed as and/or executed on any type and form of computing device).
As per claim 2, Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of applications and processes comprise a user-experience (UX) process, a network speed test service and a streaming client of the HMD (Gupta, para[0041-0046, 0092]).
As per claim 3, Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the UX process is configured to launch the network speed test service via communication with the streaming client (Gupta, para[0042-0043]).
As per claim 4, Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the network speed test service is configured to monitor an actual network connection quality and communicate via the streaming client with the edge server to increase data flow (Gupta, para[0043-0044]).
As per claim 5, Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the network speed test service is configured to be scheduled to run at periodic intervals or be triggered by a change in an environment including a change of a service-server identification (SSID) (Gupta, para[0043]).
As per claim 6, Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the edge server is configured to execute a cloud-computing process that is configured to function as a proxy between the edge server and the HMD (Gupta, para[0035,0045-0047,0090]).
As per claim 8, Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the edge server is further configured to execute a real-time network analysis (RTNA) speed test server (Gupta, para[0042-0043]).
As per claim 9, Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the RTNA speed test server is configured to communicate with an RTNA client of the streaming client (Gupta, para[0042-0044]).
As per claim 10, Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the streaming client includes a native speed- test process configured to detect any degradation of metrics that are related to an operation of the streaming client (Gupta, para[0042-0043]).
As per claim 12, Gupta discloses a system, comprising:
an HMD in communication with a data center (Gupta, para[0038,0045-0046] accelerate delivery of a streaming application and data file processable by the application from a data center to a remote user location by accelerating transport layer traffic between a client 102 and a server 106; clients… may be implemented by any computing or processing environment and with any type of machine);
a co-located server including a VM in communication with the data center and a streaming server (Gupta, para[0046,0049] servers…may be implemented by any computing or processing environment and with any type of machine; computing device 101…may execute a virtual machine); and
an edge server configured to be in communication with the streaming server of the co-located server, wherein the HMD includes a network speed-test service and a streaming client configured to work with the edge server to dynamically adjust an HMD-user's experience (Gupta, para[0046, 0042-0044] based upon one or more monitored performance conditions or metrics, application delivery system 190 may be dynamically adjusted, for example periodically or in real-time, to optimize application delivery by servers 106 to clients 102 based upon network environment performance and conditions).
As per claim 13, Gupta discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the HMD-user's experience is adjusted based on a real-time network condition including any degradation of metrics that are related to an operation of a streaming client of the HMD (Gupta, para[0043-0044]).
As per claim 15, Gupta discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the HMD is configured to execute a plurality of applications and processes comprising a UX process, the network speed-test service and the streaming client (Gupta, para[0041-0046, 0092]).
As per claim 16, Gupta discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the edge server is further configured to execute an RTNA speed test server configured to communicate with an RTNA client of the streaming client (Gupta, para[0042-0044]).
As per claim 18, Gupta discloses a method, comprising:
initiating, by an HMD, an edge-discovery call to a core data center (Gupta, para[0013] request to access a resource; request execution);
receiving, by the HMD, an encrypted token including an internet protocol (IP) and port information of a selected edge server from the core data center (Gupta, para[0038,0064] appliance may…act as a proxy or access server to provide access to one or more servers, provide security and/or act as a firewall…provide DNS resolution…and/or provide a secure virtual private network connection; wherein using tokens for security and authentication are well within the art and cannot be considered an inventive concept); and
conducting, by an RTNA client of the HMD, a speed test by using the selected edge server (Gupta, para[0042-0044] performance monitoring may be performed).
As per claim 19, Gupta discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising: causing the selected edge server to perform uplink and downlink tests to assess a network quality; and determining, based on test results, whether the network conditions meet criterion for a desired user experience (Gupta, para[0042-0044]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta and further in view of Cevat Yerli (US Pub. No. 2021/0058473 herein after “Yerli”).
As per claim 7 and similarly claim 14, Gupta does not disclose, however, Yerli discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the cloud-computing process is configured to facilitate offloading computation from the streaming client to a virtual machine (VM) executing on the co-located server (Yerli, para[0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yerli’s teaching of offloading into Gupta’s teaching of resource allocation because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the computational burden on the client.
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta and further in view of Momchilov et al (US Pub. No. 2020/0374238 herein after “Momchilov”).
As per claim 11, and similarly claim 17, Gupta does not disclose, however, Momchilov discloses The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the streaming client is configured to provide feedback to a user via a UX process to allow the user to troubleshoot reasons for the detected degradation (Momchilov, para[0106]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Momchilov’s teaching of reporting into Gupta’s teaching of resource allocation because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow troubleshooting performance and network issues.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta and further in view of Condon et al (US Pub. No. 2024/0015596 herein after “Condon”).
As per claim 20, Gupta does not disclose, however, Condon discloses the method of claim 18, wherein, initiating the edge-discovery call is performed by a system UX of the HMD; receiving, from the core data center, another encrypted token associated with a co- located server; and the encrypted token and the other encrypted token are determined based on a plurality of factors including latency, graphical processing unit (GPU) requirements, and network bandwidth (Condon, para[0020,0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Condon’s teaching of token module into Gupta’s teaching of Resource Allocation because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to assist in adjusting application delivery system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Natisha Cox whose telephone number is (571)270-7167. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10:00 am - 6:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached on (571)270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8000.
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://pairdirect.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.
/NATISHA D COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights