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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 15, 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0291435 to Hirsimaki et al.
As concerns claim 1, a method of managing a data streaming session, comprising: identifying one or more parameters (0048-0049; 0057-wireless transmission path to be used…found out in connection with opening of the data transfer; maximum send window, defined in TCP control block (TCB); 0063) of a second communication link (0010-at least two alternative wireless transmission paths; 0041-0042) in response to determining that a user equipment (UE) that is receiving data for a data streaming session has changed (Fig. 4b-transmission path changed) from a first communication link (0010-at least two alternative wireless transmission paths; 0041-0042) to the second communication link;
selecting an initial congestion window size (Fig. 4A, 402-set window size based on transmission path) that is larger (Fig. 4B, 412, 414 Increase the window; 0016) than a default congestion window size (Fig. 4B, 412- window size changed; 0016; 0055) based on the one or more parameters (0057-size of window adjusted on basis of wireless transmission path used) of the second communication link;
and applying the selected initial congestion window size to the data streaming session (Fig. 4, 402, set window size; 0057-size of window adjusted when transmission path is changed).
As concerns claim 12, a user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor (0076) configured with processor-executable instructions to: identify one or more parameters (0048-0049; 0057-wireless transmission path to be used…found out in connection with opening of the data transfer; maximum send window, defined in TCP control block (TCB); 0063) of a second communication link (0010-at least two alternative wireless transmission paths; 0041-0042) in response to determining that the UE that is receiving data for a data streaming session has changed (Fig. 4b-transmission path changed) from a first communication link (0010-at least two alternative wireless transmission paths; 0041-0042) to the second communication link;
select an initial congestion window size (Fig. 4A, 402-set window size based on transmission path) that is larger (Fig. 4B, 412, 414 Increase the window; 0016) than a default congestion window size (Fig. 4B, 412- window size changed; 0016; 0055) based on the one or more parameters (0057-size of window adjusted on basis of wireless transmission path used) of the second communication link; and apply the selected initial congestion window size to the data streaming session (Fig. 4, 402, set window size; 0057-size of window adjusted when transmission path is changed).
As concerns claim 23, a user equipment (UE), comprising: means for identifying one or more parameters of a second communication link (0076; 0048-0049; 0057-wireless transmission path to be used…found out in connection with opening of the data transfer; maximum send window, defined in TCP control block (TCB); 0063 ) in response to determining that the UE that is receiving data for a data streaming session has changed (Fig. 4b-transmission path changed) from a first communication link (0010-at least two alternative wireless transmission paths; 0041-0042) to the second communication link; means for selecting an initial congestion window size (Fig. 4A, 402-set window size based on transmission path) that is larger (Fig. 4B, 412, 414 Increase the window; 0016) than a default congestion window size (Fig. 4B, 412- window size changed; 0016; 0055) based on the one or more parameters (0057-size of window adjusted on basis of wireless transmission path used) of the second communication link; and means for applying the selected initial congestion window size to the data streaming session (Fig. 4, 402, set window size; 0057-size of window adjusted when transmission path is changed).
As concerns claims 2, 13 and 20, the invention of claim 1, 12 and 19, wherein identifying the one or more parameters of the second communication link comprises identifying by a monitor service (0063-monitors transmission path) executing in a framework of the UE (0076-0077-client device) the one or more parameters of the second communication link.
As concerns claim 4 and 15, the invention of claims 1 and 12, wherein identifying the one or more parameters of the second communication link comprises identifying one or more network-configured parameters of the second communication link (0048-0049; 0057-wireless transmission path to be used…found out in connection with opening of the data transfer; maximum send window, defined in TCP control block (TCB); 0063; protocol, type of network link is “configured”).
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.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0291435 to Hirsimaki et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0073178 to Yin et al.
Hirsimaki et al. ‘435 do not disclose:
As concerns claim 5, the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying an application requirement of an application executing on the UE that receives data from the data streaming session, wherein selecting the initial congestion window size that is larger than the default congestion window size is based on the application requirement.
As concerns claim 16, the UE of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured with processor-executable instructions to: identify an application requirement of an application executing on the UE that receives data from the data streaming session; and select the initial congestion window size that is larger than the default congestion window size based on the application requirement.
Yin et al. ‘178 teach:
As concerns claim 5, the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying an application requirement of an application executing on the UE that receives data from the data streaming session, wherein selecting the initial congestion window size that is larger than the default congestion window size is based on the application requirement (0051-size of sliding window, application, system requirements).
As concerns claim 16, the UE of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured with processor-executable instructions to: identify an application requirement of an application executing on the UE that receives data from the data streaming session; and select the initial congestion window size that is larger than the default congestion window size based on the application requirement (0051-size of sliding window, application, system requirements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Hirsimaki et al. ‘435 with an application requirement, as taught by Yin et al. ‘178, in order to provide appropriate data usage based on particular use cases, thus enhancing the user’s experience.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0291435 to Hirsimaki et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0126590 to Vejlgaard et al.
Hirsimaki et al. ‘435 do not disclose:
As concerns claims 3 and 14, the invention of claims 1 and 12, wherein identifying the one or more parameters of the second communication link comprises identifying a location of an access point that provides the second communication link.
Vejlgaard et al. ‘590 teach:
As concerns claims 3 and 14, the invention of claims 1 and 12, wherein identifying the one or more parameters of the second communication link comprises identifying a location of an access point that provides the second communication link (0182-measurement window, adjust, based on location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Hirsimaki et al. ‘435 with location information, as taught by Vejlgaard et al. ‘590, in order to provide adequate data transfer based upon distance that would influence signals.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0291435 to Hirsimaki et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0056627 to Reddy et al.
Hirsimaki et al. ‘435 do not disclose:
As concerns claims 6 and 17, the invention of claims 1 and 12, wherein: identifying the one or more parameters of the second communication link comprises identifying one or more historical parameters of the second communication link, and selecting the initial congestion window size that is larger than the default congestion window size is based on the one or more historical parameters of the second communication link.
Reddy et al. ‘627 teach:
As concerns claims 6 and 17, the invention of claims 1 and 12, wherein: identifying the one or more parameters of the second communication link comprises identifying one or more historical parameters of the second communication link, and selecting the initial congestion window size that is larger than the default congestion window size is based on the one or more historical parameters of the second communication link (0098-versus historical data, adjust window).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Hirsimaki et al. ‘435 with historical parameters, as taught by Reddy et al. ‘627, in order to provide an adequate user experience during overload times.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 11, 19, 21 and 22 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0013246 to Miyake et al. disclose: window size, buffer space of client device (0042).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-7063. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 pm.
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, Christopher L Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/JOHN B WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights