Detail Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 11/20/2025.
Notice of 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 .
Claims Status
Claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 16, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 25, 26A, 26B, and 27 have been newly added.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-28 have been newly added.
Claim Objections
Regarding claims 26 and 26, the claims are objected because the claim numbers are duplicated. Examiner suggest to cancel one claim in order to overcome the objection. For purpose of examination, the earlier listed claim 26 is designated as claim 26A throughout the office action, while the later listed claim 26 is designated as claim 26B. Appropriate correction is required.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Lopes et al. (US 2018/0176111), the prior art discloses the mode may, for example, limit the number of parallel measurements being conducted (e.g., one measurement in a single-thread mode, N measurements in a multi-thread mode assuming a maximum N threads, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant remarks, filed on 11/20/2025, argues that the cited portion of the prior art, individually or in combination, fails to discloses the new features in claim 1 , specifically those pertaining to the act of "scheduling measurements of a maximum achievable bandwidth for a particular downlink network node”. Examiner agrees with Applicant that the cited portion of the prior art failed to disclose the new features of claim 1. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Guo et al. (US Publication No. 2014/0022918). The new grounds of rejection recite “Upon determination that a performance measurement trigger has occurred (step 320), measuring performance metrics (step 340) and reporting the measured performance metrics (step 360); see figure 3 & ¶ 0083. The trigger may be any suitable event signaling that performance metrics [maximum achievable bandwidth] should be measured, wherein the trigger event is periodically [scheduling] triggered at threshold intervals; see Guo figure 3 & ¶ 0084.”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under AIA 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.
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US Publication No. 2014/0022918, hereinafter referred as Guo) in view of Werner et al. (US Publication No. 2016/0057679, hereinafter referred as Werner).
Regarding claims 1, Guo discloses scheduling measurements of a maximum achievable bandwidth for a particular downlink network node (Upon determination that a performance measurement trigger has occurred (step 320), measuring performance metrics (step 340) and reporting the measured performance metrics (step 360); see figure 3 & ¶ 0083. The trigger may be any suitable event signaling [scheduling] that performance metrics [maximum achievable bandwidth] should be measured; see figure 3 & ¶ 0084.);
performing, once scheduled, active measurements of the maximum achievable bandwidth for the downlink network node (The backhaul performance measurements includes active measurements; see figure 3 numeral 340 & ¶ 0102. The measurement report includes peak throughput; see ¶ 0056.);
determining an uplink direction bandwidth estimation for the downlink network node by running test execution for a predetermined test-duration time using UDP packets (The measurement includes uplink throughput; see figure 3 numeral 340 & ¶ 0102. Uplink throughput test for uploading a test file using UDP from the measurement program on the wireless AP to the measurement program on the measurement server; see figure 3 numeral 340 & ¶ 0108. It is interpreted that the uplink throughput test is performed for a finite amount of time.);
determining a downlink direction bandwidth estimation for the downlink network node by running test execution for a predetermined test-duration time using UDP packets (The measurement includes downlink throughput; see figure 3 numeral 340 & ¶ 0102. Downlink throughput test for uploading a test file using UDP from the measurement program on the wireless AP to the measurement program on the measurement server; see figure 3 numeral 340 & ¶ 0109. It is interpreted that the uplink throughput test is performed for a finite amount of time.).
Guo fails to disclose “determining …; and distributing…; performing …”. However, in analogous art, Werner discloses determining, using the uplink direction bandwidth estimation and the downlink direction estimation bandwidth, a bandwidth estimation conclusion for the downlink network node (A cSON server receives capacity report from each of the plurality of small cell base stations, wherein the capacity report indicates an uplink/downlink capacity state of the connection; see figure 10 block 1010 & ¶ 0101-0102. The cSON server determines load balancing assistance data for at least one of the plurality if small cell base stations; see figure 10 block 1020 & ¶ 0103.); and
distributing the downlink bandwidth estimated value throughout the network (The cSON server provide the load balancing assistance data [downlink bandwidth estimated value] to the at least one of the plurality small cell base stations; see figure 10 block 1030 & ¶ 0105.)
to at least one intermediary node between a core network node and at least one access node, the intermediary node configured to further distribute the downlink bandwidth estimated value to the at least one access node (The wireless communication system also includes a relay station in between the small cell BS and the macro-BS; see figure 13 & ¶ 0118. A relay station is a station that receives a transmission of data and/or other information from an upstream station (e.g., an eNB or a UE) and sends a transmission of the data and/or other information [load balancing assistance data] to a downstream station (e.g., a UE or an eNB); see ¶ 0118.);
performing admission control based on the downlink bandwidth estimated value at a location at the edge of the network (The at least one of the pluralities of small base station perform hand off [admission control] to at least one user device of the one or more user devices to another small cell base station of the plurality of small cell base stations, etc., as directed by the load balancing assistance data [estimated value]; see ¶ 0105.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo measurement system with an backhaul rate limit mechanism in order to avoid impact to Internet traffic by fulfilling the rate limit more quickly; see ¶ 0098.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Guo discloses that the network has a maximum-bandwidth uplink bandwidth (The measurement report includes peak throughput for traffic in uplink and downlink directions respectively; see ¶ 0056.).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Guo discloses that the network has a maximum-bandwidth downlink bandwidth (The measurement report includes peak throughput for traffic in uplink and downlink directions respectively; see ¶ 0056.).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Guo fails to disclose distributing the uplink bandwidth estimated value throughout the network. However, in analogous art, Werner discloses that the cSON server provide the load balancing assistance data [ estimated value] to the at least one of the plurality small cell base stations; see figure 10 block 1030 & ¶ 0105. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo measurement system with an backhaul rate limit mechanism in order to avoid impact to Internet traffic by fulfilling the rate limit more quickly; see ¶ 0098.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim introduces the concept of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for providing backhaul bandwidth estimation for a network that when executed, causes a network to perform steps…”. However, it is inherent that the server would include A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for providing backhaul bandwidth estimation for a network that when executed, causes a network to perform operations of the claim. Therefore, the claim is rejected under the same rational as the claim 1.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 12, 14, and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo, Werner, and further in view of Park et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0077032, hereinafter referred as Park).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Guo, as modified, fails to disclose the performing active measurements of a maximum achievable bandwidth for the network comprises using an IPerf server. However, in analogous art, Park discloses that the active monitoring (e.g. iPerf) use a user datagram protocol (UDP) echo packet for transmitting and receiving a probe packet; see ¶ 0038. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo measurement system with an iPerf feature in order to improve the management of the quality of experience (QoE) between various wired/wireless networks.; see ¶ 0001.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Guo fails to disclose that the UDP packets have a predetermined packet-size. However, in analogous art, Park discloses that the active monitoring (e.g. iPerf) use a user datagram protocol (UDP) echo packet for transmitting and receiving a probe packet; see ¶ 0038. The information for imitating the traffic of the service to be measured may include at least one of a packet size; see ¶ 0097. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo measurement system with an iPerf feature in order to improve the management of the quality of experience (QoE) between various wired/wireless networks.; see ¶ 0001.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Guo fails to disclose that the UDP packets have a predetermined packet-size. However, in analogous art, Park discloses that the active monitoring (e.g. iPerf) use a user datagram protocol (UDP) echo packet for transmitting and receiving a probe packet; see ¶ 0038. The information for imitating the traffic of the service to be measured may include at least one of a packet size; see ¶ 0097. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo measurement system with an iPerf feature in order to improve the management of the quality of experience (QoE) between various wired/wireless networks.; see ¶ 0001.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo, Werner, and further in view of Gilfix et al. (US Publication No. 2008/0008090, hereinafter referred as Gilfix).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Guo fails to disclose performing mesh node admission control. However, in analogous art, Gilfix discloses that the admission control algorithm called the estimation algorithm for every single request, regardless of whether the request is admitted or rejected; see ¶ 0096. The network topology is a mesh configuration; see ¶ 0007. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo measurement system with an admission control feature in order to enable high levels of access to network processes and associated data without comprising quality user experience.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Guo fails to disclose performing traffic shaping. However, in analogous art, Gilfix discloses that the estimator used within the traffic shaping algorithm performs a continual, real-time capacity estimation for each member of the cluster. This enables the estimator to determine when to ask the reservation coordinator for additional rate capacity, and when to release rate capacity back into the cluster; see ¶ 0110. The network topology is a mesh configuration; see ¶ 0007. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo measurement system with an admission control feature in order to enable high levels of access to network processes and associated data without comprising quality user experience.
Claims 25, 26A, 26B, and 27 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US Publication No. 2014/0022918, hereinafter referred as Guo) in view of Kazmi et al. (US Publication No. 2014/0098691, hereinafter referred as Kazmi).
Regarding claim 25, Guo fails to disclose evaluating a current number of parallel bandwidth measurements against a maximum number of parallel measurements. However, in analogous art, Kazmi discloses that the signal measuring node determines a capability of the measuring node to perform parallel measurements; see figure 3 numeral 304 & ¶ 0035. The capability of the measuring node to perform parallel measurements refers to one or more of the following: a) a maximum number of UL measurements the signal measuring node is capable of performing (i.e., capable of performing with measurement resources currently allocated to UL measurements) over the predetermined measurement period, b) a maximum number of UL signals that the measuring node is capable of receiving over the predetermined measurement period, c) a maximum number of calculations that the measuring node is capable of making over the predetermined measurement period, and d) a maximum number of WCDs the measuring node is capable of receiving UL signals from over the predetermined measurement period; see figure 3 numeral 304 & ¶ 0035. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo measurement system with an capability feature in order to meet the constrains of the measuring node such as power or number of transmitters.
Regarding claim 26A, Guo fails to disclose evaluating a current measurement bandwidth against a maximum allowable measurement bandwidth. However, in analogous art, Kazmi discloses that the signal measuring node determines a capability of the measuring node to perform parallel measurements; see figure 3 numeral 304 & ¶ 0035. The capability of the measuring node to perform parallel measurements refers to one or more of the following: a) a maximum number of UL measurements the signal measuring node is capable of performing (i.e., capable of performing with measurement resources currently allocated to UL measurements) over the predetermined measurement period, b) a maximum number of UL signals that the measuring node is capable of receiving over the predetermined measurement period, c) a maximum number of calculations that the measuring node is capable of making over the predetermined measurement period, and d) a maximum number of WCDs the measuring node is capable of receiving UL signals from over the predetermined measurement period; see figure 3 numeral 304 & ¶ 0035. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo measurement system with an capability feature in order to meet the constrains of the measuring node such as power or number of transmitters.
Regarding claim 26B, Guo fails to disclose denying scheduling measurements if a maximum number of parallel measurements is not exceeded and a maximum allowable measurement bandwidth is not exceeded. However, in analogous art, Kazmi discloses that the signal measuring node determines a capability of the measuring node to perform parallel measurements; see figure 3 numeral 304 & ¶ 0035. Furthermore, determining whether the parallel measurements exceed the capability of the measuring node; see figure 3 numeral 306 & ¶ 0038. The capability of the measuring node to perform parallel measurements refers to one or more of the following: a) a maximum number of UL measurements the signal measuring node is capable of performing (i.e., capable of performing with measurement resources currently allocated to UL measurements) over the predetermined measurement period, b) a maximum number of UL signals that the measuring node is capable of receiving over the predetermined measurement period, c) a maximum number of calculations that the measuring node is capable of making over the predetermined measurement period, and d) a maximum number of WCDs the measuring node is capable of receiving UL signals from over the predetermined measurement period; see figure 3 numeral 304 & ¶ 0035. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo measurement system with an capability feature in order to meet the constrains of the measuring node such as power or number of transmitters.
Regarding claim 27, Guo fails to disclose denying scheduling measurements of the maximum achievable bandwidth for the downlink network node if a current number of parallel bandwidth measurements exceeds a parallel measurement threshold or if a current measurement bandwidth exceeds a bandwidth threshold. However, in analogous art, Kazmi discloses that the signal measuring node determines a capability of the measuring node to perform parallel measurements; see figure 3 numeral 304 & ¶ 0035. The capability of the measuring node to perform parallel measurements refers to one or more of the following: a) a maximum number of UL measurements the signal measuring node is capable of performing (i.e., capable of performing with measurement resources currently allocated to UL measurements) over the predetermined measurement period, b) a maximum number of UL signals that the measuring node is capable of receiving over the predetermined measurement period, c) a maximum number of calculations that the measuring node is capable of making over the predetermined measurement period, and d) a maximum number of WCDs the measuring node is capable of receiving UL signals from over the predetermined measurement period; see figure 3 numeral 304 & ¶ 0035. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo measurement system with an capability feature in order to meet the constrains of the measuring node such as power or number of transmitters.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HECTOR REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached on (571) 272-3980. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights