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 .
Examiner finds no 35 USC 101 rejections in the current claim language.
Double Patenting Considerations:
U.S. Pat. No. 11,956,293:
The claim language of related patent ‘293 (same assignee and 2 common inventors (parent case)) does not disclose the “selecting a target network path from the plurality of network paths based on respective performance metrics of each network path of the plurality of network paths” (and other detailed steps), as seen in the independent claim language of the present Application.
Therefore, there are no double patenting rejections in the current Application with regard to ‘293.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The priority data section of the specification should be updated (18/599,479 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,273,403)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 – 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Missing punctuation (claim 20, end of line 7);
Claim 2 recites the limitation "each network path" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each network path”;
Claim 4 recites the limitation "each network path" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each network path”;
Claim 4 recites the limitation "each network path" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each network path”;
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the network path" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each network path”;
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the network path" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each network path”;
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the network path" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each network path”;
Claim 9 recites the limitation "each network path" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each network path”;
Claim 12 recites the limitation "each network path" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each network path”;
Claim 14 recites the limitation "each network path" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each network path”;
Claim 14 recites the limitation "each network path" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each network path”;
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the network path" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each network path”;
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the network path" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each network path”;
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the network path" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each network path”;
Claim 19 recites the limitation "each network path" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each network path”.
Examiner recommends a thorough review of the claim language in order to correct other possible antecedent basis concerns.
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 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,403. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the mapping below.
Claim 2 of the present Application maps to claims 1 and 6 of ‘403
2. A method comprising (claim 1 “A method comprising”):
receiving, at a device, a request to access a content item (“receiving, by a device, first information identifying a first set of content delivery networks (CDNs)”);
identifying a plurality of network paths over which the content item is accessible, wherein each network path comprises a corresponding network interface of the device and a corresponding content delivery network (CDN) (claim 1 “identifying one or more multi-network communication paths, each multi-network communication path comprising a communication path between one of the one or more common CDNs and the device via the first network and the second network”);
selecting a target network path from the plurality of network paths based on respective performance metrics of each network path of the plurality of network paths (claim 1 “selecting a selected multi-network communication path based on the respective performance metrics of the one or more multi-network communication paths”); and
retrieving at least a portion of the content item via the target network path (claim 6 “retrieving a second segment of the content item via the multi-network communication path”).
Claim 12 of the present Application maps to claims 11 and 16 of ‘403.
12. A system comprising (claim 11 “A system comprising”):
input/output circuitry configured to (claim 11 “input/output circuitry configured to”):
receive, at a device, a request to access a content item; and control circuitry configured to (claim 1 “receive, at a device, first information identifying a first set of content delivery networks (CDNs) … and control circuitry configured to”):
identify a plurality of network paths over which the content item is accessible, wherein each network path comprises a corresponding network interface of the device and a corresponding content delivery network (CDN) (claim 11 “identify one or more multi-network communication paths, each multi-network communication path comprising a communication path between one of the one or more common CDNs and the device via the first network and the second network”); and
select a target network path from the plurality of network paths based on respective performance metrics of each network path of the plurality of network paths (claim 11 “select a selected multi-network communication path based on the respective performance metrics of the one or more multi-network communication paths”); and
wherein the input/output circuitry is further configured to retrieve at least a portion of the content item via the target network path (claim 16 “retrieving, via the input/output circuitry, a second segment of the content item via the multi-network communication path”).
The current claim language is not rejected under statutory double patenting because the independent claims of the present Application are broader than the claim language in ‘403.
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 – 8 and 12 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Singh et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0058200) (Routing Information Exchange between Separate Networks to Improve end-to-End Network Performance for Users).
2. A method comprising:
receiving, at a device, a request to access a content item (Fig. 1; paragraph 38 “For ease of discussion, the examples described herein correspond to a data download or data being transmitted from the server endpoint device 110 to the user endpoint device 108, e.g., in response to a data download request”);
identifying a plurality of network paths over which the content item is accessible, wherein each network path comprises a corresponding network interface of the device and a corresponding content delivery network (CDN) (Fig. 1; paragraph 42 “The routing modules 120, 122 are configured to monitor the network paths …”);
selecting a target network path from the plurality of network paths based on respective performance metrics of each network path of the plurality of network paths (Fig. 3D; paragraph 60; paragraph 10 “select an optimal path …”; paragraph 68 “the routing module 120 can use one of various algorithms with defined weights to identify and select an optimal end-to-end path while considering multiple performance factors or metrics”); and
retrieving at least a portion of the content item via the target network path (Fig. 3D; paragraph 60 “FIG. 3D illustrates an example scenario in which packet loss rate is the performance metric, or one of the performance metrics, used to identify an optimal end-to-end path. The routing information 126 monitored and/or collected by the routing module 122 for WAN 104 can indicate that path 116(1) has a packet loss rate of 1% 350 (e.g., one packet lost per one hundred packets for a defined unit of time), that path 116(2) has a packet loss rate of 2% 352, and that path 116(L) has a packet loss rate of 3% 354”).).
3. The method of claim 2, wherein a first network path of the plurality of network paths comprises a wi-fi internet interface (paragraph 35 “the network(s) 102, 104 may alternatively include any type of wired and/or wireless networks, including but not limited to local area networks (LANs), satellite networks, cable networks, Wi-Fi networks, WiMax networks, mobile communications networks (e.g., 3G, 4G, and so forth)”) and a first CDN, and wherein a second network path of the plurality of network paths comprises a cellular internet interface and the first CDN (paragraph 35).
4. The method of claim 2, wherein selecting the target network path based on the respective performance metrics of each network path comprises, for each network path:
retrieving a segment of the content item from the corresponding CDN of the network path via the corresponding network interface of the network path; and
determining the respective performance metric for the network path based on the retrieval of the segment of the content item (Fig. 3D; paragraph 60 “FIG. 3D illustrates an example scenario in which packet loss rate is the performance metric, or one of the performance metrics, used to identify an optimal end-to-end path. The routing information 126 monitored and/or collected by the routing module 122 for WAN 104 can indicate that path 116(1) has a packet loss rate of 1% 350 (e.g., one packet lost per one hundred packets for a defined unit of time), that path 116(2) has a packet loss rate of 2% 352, and that path 116(L) has a packet loss rate of 3% 354”).
5. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
ranking the plurality of network paths based on the respective performance metrics to determine a best-ranked network path; and
selecting the best-ranked network path as the selected network path (Fig. 3D; paragraph 60; paragraph 62 “the routing module 120 can rank the end-to-end paths based on the packet loss rates 362. As shown via the ranking 364, end-to-end path 128 is the top-ranked end-to-end path with an average packet loss rate of 1.5%, end-to-end path 130 is the second-ranked end-to-end path with an average packet loss rate of 2%, and end-to-end path 132 is the third-ranked end-to-end path with an average packet loss rate of 2.5%.”; paragraph 63 “select the corresponding path”).
6. The method of claim 2, wherein the selected network path is a first network path, the method further comprising:
in response to determining that the respective performance metric of the first network path is below a threshold level, switching to a second network path for retrieval of additional segments of the content item (paragraph 11 “preestablished network performance threshold”).
7. The method of claim 6, wherein:
the first network path comprises a first network interface and a first CDN, and
the second network path comprises a second network interface and the first CDN (Fig. 8; paragraph 90).
8. The method of claim 6, wherein:
the first network path comprises a first network interface and a first CDN, and
the second network path comprises a second network interface and a second CDN (Fig. 8; paragraph 90).
Regarding claims 12 – 18, the rejection of claims 2 – 8 (see above) applies fully.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 – 11 and 19 – 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For future email communications (including interview agendas), Applicant should file the appropriate PTO form (PTO/SB/439) or file an air interview request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH R COULTER whose telephone number is (571)272-3879. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (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, Oscar Louie can be reached at M-H, 7:30am-2:30pm (EST) (571-270-1684). 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.
/KENNETH R COULTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
/KRC/
Prosecution Insights