DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is responsive to the Remark filed on 10/30/25.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are presented for examination.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for monitoring… in claim 28-30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for means for monitoring application traffic of one or more applications installed on the UE; means for determining one or more observation features of the application traffic within an observation period; means for predicting, via a machine learning model, a traffic category of the observation period based on the one or more observation features; and means for applying an optimization to second application traffic of the one or more applications at the UE based on the traffic category, does not reasonably provide enablement for applying an optimization to second application traffic based on the traffic category. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make--, --use--, or—make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. means for monitoring application traffic of one or more applications installed on the UE; means for determining one or more observation features of the application traffic within an observation period; means for predicting, via a machine learning model, a traffic category of the observation period based on the one or more observation features; and means for applying an optimization to second application traffic of the one or more applications at the UE based on the traffic category. The specification is not enabling, applying the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998) as appropriate. See also MPEP §§ 2164.01(a) and 2164.04.
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 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 of this title, 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) 1-2, 6-8, 10-11, 15-17, 19-20, 24-26 & 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teslenko, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2023/0261958 A1 in view of Martin, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2017/0207997 A1, and further in view of Sang, US 2015/0312831 A1.
As to claim 1, Teslenko teaches a method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
monitoring application traffic of one or more applications installed on the UE (Teslenko, page 1, paragraph 7; page 6, paragraph 94; i.e., [0007] network traffic activities of a plurality of mobile devices is provided. Each data record includes a traffic type of a traffic activity of a mobile device; [0094] A second insight/monitoring type is called "Popular Application Categories". Here, PDU headers are analyzed to identify the applications generating the associated traffic activities, and to grouping of applications under one or more generic traffic activities as values. Again, the actual application and the actual mobile device 108 using the application. Over time, this insight can give an estimation of what type of applications are popular in a specific area and/or time);
determining one or more observation features of the application traffic within an observation period (Teslenko, page 1, paragraph 7; page 6, paragraph 94; i.e., [0007] network traffic activities of a plurality of mobile devices is provided. Each data record includes a traffic type of a traffic activity of a mobile device; [0094] A second insight/monitoring type is called "Popular Application Categories". Here, PDU headers are analyzed to identify the applications generating the associated traffic activities, and to grouping of applications under one or more generic traffic activities as values. Again, the actual application and the actual mobile device 108 using the application. Over time, this insight can give an estimation of what type of applications are popular in a specific area and/or time);
predicting via a machine learning (ML) model, a traffic category of the observation period based on the one or more observation features (Teslenko, page 2, paragraph 18 & 23; page 6, paragraph 94; i.e., [0018] The traffic type included in a particular data record may be determined ( e.g., upon data record generation) by at
least one of PDU header inspection and PDU payload inspection; [0023] The type in this data structure may correspond to the monitoring type specified in the monitoring request. The value may be indicative of one or more of: a traffic type, a generic traffic type encompassing multiple traffic types on a lower hierarchy level, a prediction made
by a machine learning algorithm based on the data records that fulfil the conditions, and a temporal validity of the prediction, and an average traffic duration; [0094] Here, PDU headers are analyzed to identify the applications generating the associated traffic activities, and to grouping of applications under one or more generic traffic activities as values. Over time, this insight can give an estimation of what type of applications are popular in a specific area and/or time).
But Teslenko failed to teach the claim limitation wherein monitoring, determining, predicting and applying application traffic by the UE; and based on one or more throughput bursts, the one or more throughput bursts comprising a period of time in which a throughput of the one or more applications is above a threshold; applying an optimization to second application traffic of the one or more applications at the UE based on the traffic category.
However, Martin teaches the limitation wherein applying an optimization to second application traffic of the one or more applications at the UE based on the traffic category (Martin, page 10, paragraph 101 & 104; i.e., [0101] different algorithms that are in use simultaneously would be designed for different types of traffic. For example, a rule could specify that an application to optimize web traffic is to receive TCP packets on ports 80 and 443 and another application to optimize domain name system (DNS) names is to receive user datagram protocol (UDP) packets on port 53. The web cache communication protocol (WCCP) and the WANapp table support the specification of this type of rule; [0104] the selected application, the optimized communication traffic is reinserted at or approximately at the point where it left the WAN ingress conduit service processing stages 242).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Teslenko to substitute routing domain from Martin for flow description from Teslenko to configure, monitor,
optimize according to data type and function, and analyze each node of a large network (Martin, page 2, paragraph 6).
However, Sang teaches the limitation wherein monitoring, determining, predicting and applying application traffic by the UE (Sang, page 4, paragraph 64 & 66; page 5, paragraph 72; page 6, paragraph 79; page 7, paragraph 92; i.e., [0079] FIG. 7 shows an exemplary flow chart of the UE determining whether to offload the traffic based on the association status and QoS requirements in accordance with embodiments of the current invention. At step 701, the UE monitors the association status of each radio access link. At step 702, the UE monitors the application and/or data flaw's QoS requirements. At step 704, the UE obtains the QoS requirement value for the application/flow. At step 705, the UE dynamically estimates the throughput for each radio access network based on the association status and the QoS requirement value. At step 706, the UE compares the estimated throughputs for each radio access network. At step 707, the UE determines whether to perform traffic offload. If step 707 determines yes, the UE performs traffic offload; [0092] The dynamic real time measurements are further
processed to determine the end-to-end throughput and traffic offloading decisions. At step 911, the UE determines if the traffic is QoS traffic with association to access A, and the current performance is below a predefined threshold); and based on one or more throughput bursts, the one or more throughput bursts comprising a period of time in which a throughput of the one or more applications is above a threshold (Sang, page 4, paragraph 66; page 6, paragraph 79; ; page 7, paragraph 92; i.e., [0079] FIG. 7 shows an exemplary flow chart of the UE determining whether to offload the traffic based on the association status and QoS requirements in accordance with embodiments of the current invention. At step 701, the UE monitors the association status of each radio access link. At step 702, the UE monitors the application and/or data flaw's QoS requirements. At step 704, the UE obtains the QoS requirement value for the application/flow. At step 705, the UE dynamically estimates the throughput for each radio access network based on the association status and the QoS requirement value. At step 706, the UE compares the estimated throughputs for each radio access network. At step 707, the UE determines whether to perform traffic offload. If step 707 determines yes, the UE performs traffic offload; [0092] The dynamic real time measurements are further
processed to determine the end-to-end throughput and traffic offloading decisions. At step 911, the UE determines if the traffic is QoS traffic with association to access A, and the current performance is below a predefined threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Teslenko to substitute policy input from Sang for policy control from Teslenko to provide user better experience, e.g., to speed up throughput when downloading data through two radio interfaces simultaneously (Sang, page 1, paragraph 4).
As to claim 2, Teslenko-Martin-Sang teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein predicting the traffic category based on the one or more observation features, comprises:
determining traffic volume information for the application traffic during the observation period (Teslenko, page 9, paragraph 142; i.e., [0142] performed dependent on another condition, such as network traffic load (wherein the rerouting takes place when a predefined load threshold is exceeded));
determining that the traffic volume information meets a predetermined criteria (Teslenko, page 9, paragraph 142; i.e., [0142] performed dependent on another condition, such as network traffic load (wherein the rerouting takes place when a predefined load threshold is exceeded)); and
predicting the traffic category in response to the traffic volume information meeting the predetermined criteria (Teslenko, page 2, paragraph 18 & 23; page 6, paragraph 94; i.e., [0023] The type in this data structure may correspond to the monitoring type specified in the monitoring request. The value may be indicative of one or more of: a traffic type, a generic traffic type encompassing multiple traffic types on a lower hierarchy level, a prediction made by a machine learning algorithm based on the data records that fulfil the conditions, and a temporal validity of the prediction, and an average traffic duration; [0094] A second insight/monitoring type is called "Popular Application Categories". Again, the actual application and the actual mobile device 108 using the application. Over time, this insight can give an estimation of what type of applications are popular in a specific area and/or time).
As to claim 6, Teslenko-Martin-Sang teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein applying the optimization comprises:
transmitting, to a network entity, a network configuration request based on the optimization (Teslenko, page 2, paragraph 18 & 23; i.e., [0018] The traffic type included in a particular data record may be determined ( e.g., upon data record generation) by at least one of PDU header inspection and PDU payload inspection);
receiving, from the network entity, a configuration indication in response to the network configuration request (Teslenko, page 3, paragraph 37; i.e., [0037] The network apparatus is further configured to return, in response to the monitoring request, a monitoring report that is based on the calculated number of mobile devices).
But Teslenko-Sang failed to teach the claim limitation wherein transmitting the second application traffic in accordance with the optimization in response to the configuration indication.
However, Martin teaches the limitation wherein transmitting the second application traffic in accordance with the optimization in response to the configuration indication (Martin, page 10, paragraph 101 & 104; i.e., [0101] different algorithms that are in use simultaneously would be designed for different types of traffic. For example, a rule could specify that an application to optimize web traffic is to receive TCP packets on ports 80 and 443 and another application to optimize domain name system (DNS) names is to receive user datagram protocol (UDP) packets on port 53. The web cache communication protocol (WCCP) and the WANapp table support the specification of this type of rule; [0104] the selected application, the optimized communication traffic is reinserted at or approximately at the point where it left the WAN ingress conduit service processing stages 242).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Teslenko-Sang to substitute routing domain from Martin for flow description from Teslenko-Sang to configure, monitor, optimize according to data type and function, and analyze each node of a large network (Martin, page 2, paragraph 6).
As to claim 7, Teslenko-Martin-Sang teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Teslenko-Sang failed to teach the claim limitation wherein applying the optimization comprises at least one of: modifying one or more CDRX attributes; implementing a low latency mode; deactivating one or more antennas of the UE; reducing the internal processors or DSP clock speed; or implementing traffic prioritization.
However, Martin teaches the limitation wherein applying the optimization comprises at least one of: modifying one or more CDRX attributes; implementing a low latency mode (Martin, page 4, paragraph 40; i.e., [0040] Each path in each conduit in the APN is monitored for quality of communication by collecting quality metrics such as packet loss and latency); deactivating one or more antennas of the UE; reducing the internal processors or DSP clock speed; or implementing traffic prioritization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Teslenko-Sang to substitute routing domain from Martin for flow description from Teslenko-Sang to configure, monitor, optimize according to data type and function, and analyze each node of a large network (Martin, page 2, paragraph 6).
As to claim 8, Teslenko-Martin-Sang teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the ML model is a first ML model, the one or more observation features are a second plurality of a plurality of observation window size and burst threshold pairs, and further comprising down selecting, using a second ML during a training phase of the first ML model, from a first plurality of observation window size and burst threshold pairs to the second plurality of a plurality of observation window size and burst threshold pairs (Teslenko, page 7, paragraph 116; i.e., [0116] The table of FIG. 7 exemplarily illustrates that all User Datagram Protocol (UDP)/ Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) traffic for a specific mobile device 108 (, i.e., traffic received from and sent by that device 108) is filtered and assigned a high priority data tunnel ("EPS bearer" in 3GPP terminology) with guaranteed 100 Kbps uplink/downlink. In addition to SDFs, it is also possible to supply application filters to PCC rules if an application identifier is provided (the application identifier can denote or be derived
from an application-layer protocol).
Claim(s) 10-11, 15-17 & 19-20, 24-26 is/are directed to system and non-transitory computer readable medium claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1-2, 6-8. Therefore, claim(s) 10-11, 15-17 & 19-20, 24-26 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1-2, 6-8.
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are directed to system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1-2. Therefore, claim(s) 28-29 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1-2.
Claim(s) 3, 12 & 21is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teslenko, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2023/0261958 A1 in view of Martin, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2017/0207997 A1, and Sang, US 2015/0312831 A1, and further in view of Makino, U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0190546 A1.
As to claim 3, Teslenko-Martin-Sang teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the observation period is a first observation period, the one or more observation features are one or more first observation features, the traffic category is a first traffic category, and further comprising:
determining traffic volume information for the application traffic during a second observation period (Teslenko, page 9, paragraph 142; i.e., [0142] performed dependent on another condition, such as network traffic load (wherein the rerouting takes place when a predefined load threshold is exceeded));
determining that the traffic volume information fails to meet a predetermined criteria (Teslenko, page 9, paragraph 142; i.e., [0142] performed dependent on another condition, such as network traffic load (wherein the rerouting takes place when a predefined load threshold is exceeded)).
But Teslenko-Martin-Sang failed to teach the claim limitation wherein skipping prediction of a second traffic category in response to the traffic volume information failing to meet the predetermined criteria.
However, Makino teaches the limitation wherein skipping prediction of a second traffic category in response to the traffic volume information failing to meet the predetermined criteria (Makino, page 6, paragraph 80; i.e., [0080] the communication speed is not used as the determination criteria, the calculation of the estimated communication speed may be omitted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Teslenko-Martin-Sang to substitute channel quality from Makino for service quality from Teslenko-Martin-Sang to satisfy desired communication quality with respect to the modulation method and encoding ratio specified by the base station (Makino, page 1, paragraph 13).
Claim(s) 21 & 21 is/are directed to system and non-transitory computer readable medium claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 3. Therefore, claim(s) 12 & 21 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 3.
Claim(s) 4-5, 9, 13-14, 18, 22-23, 27 & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teslenko, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2023/0261958 A1 in view of Martin, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2017/0207997 A1, and Sang, US 2015/0312831 A1, and further in view of Ihlar, U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0208735 A1.
As to claim 4, Teslenko-Martin-Sang teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Teslenko-Martin-Sang failed to teach the claim limitation wherein determining the one or more observation features of the application traffic within the observation period, comprising: identifying one or more throughput bursts within the observation period based on a plurality of observation window size and burst threshold pairs; and determining the one or more observation features based on the one or more throughput bursts.
However, Ihlar teaches the limitation wherein determining the one or more observation features of the application traffic within the observation period, comprising: identifying one or more throughput bursts within the observation period based on a plurality of observation window size and burst threshold pairs; and
determining the one or more observation features based on the one or more throughput bursts (Ihlar, page 8, paragraph 76; i.e., [0076] the quiescent period overlaps with, and/or based on length of the transmission period and/or silence period of an overlapping burst interval. The predefined quiescent period, e.g. 411b; 411c, may be predefined as a fraction of the suitable burst interval, e.g. 410b; 410c, and/or as a fraction of the subsequent burst interval, e.g. 410c. For example may the end portion be predefined as a percentage, e.g. 25%, of the suitable burst interval or a percentage of its silence period, and/or the begin period may be predefined as another or the same percentage, e.g. 25%, of the subsequent burst interval or a percentage of its transmission period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Teslenko-Martin-Sang to substitute communication path from Ihlar for service flow from Teslenko-Martin-Sang to figure out about current conditions in the network and thereby for example get indication if there is congestion or other problems, or potential such problems ahead (Ihlar, page 2, paragraph 17).
As to claim 5, Teslenko-Martin-Sang-Ihlar teaches the method as recited in claim 4. But Teslenko-Martin-Sang failed to teach the claim limitation wherein determining that throughput of the application traffic is greater than a burst threshold within an observation window size, wherein the burst threshold and the observation window size are an observation window size - burst threshold pair of the plurality of observation window size and burst threshold pairs.
However, Ihlar teaches the limitation wherein determining that throughput of the application traffic is greater than a burst threshold within an observation window size, wherein the burst threshold and the observation window size are an observation window size - burst threshold pair of the plurality of observation window size and burst threshold pairs (Ihlar, page 8, paragraph 76; i.e., [0076] the quiescent period overlaps with, and/or based on length of the transmission period and/or silence period of an overlapping burst interval. The predefined quiescent period, e.g. 411b; 411c, may be predefined as a fraction of the suitable burst interval, e.g. 410b; 410c, and/or as a fraction of the subsequent burst interval, e.g. 410c. For example may the end portion be predefined as a percentage, e.g. 25%, of the suitable burst interval or a percentage of its silence period, and/or the begin period may be predefined as another or the same percentage, e.g. 25%, of the subsequent burst interval or a percentage of its transmission period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Teslenko-Martin-Sang to substitute communication path from Ihlar for service flow from Teslenko-Martin-Sang to figure out about current conditions in the network and thereby for example get indication if there is congestion or other problems, or potential such problems ahead (Ihlar, page 2, paragraph 17).
As to claim 9, Teslenko-Martin-Sang teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Teslenko-Martin-Sang failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the one or more observation features include throughput bursts per minute, throughput burst occupancy, throughput burst volume percentage, throughput burst volume standard deviation, throughput burst gap standard deviation, or downlink volume ratio.
However, Ihlar teaches the limitation wherein the one or more observation features include throughput bursts per minute, throughput burst occupancy, throughput burst volume percentage, throughput burst volume standard deviation, throughput burst gap standard deviation, or downlink volume ratio (Ihlar, page 8, paragraph 76; i.e., [0076] the quiescent period overlaps with, and/or based on length of the transmission period and/or silence period of an overlapping burst interval. The predefined quiescent period, e.g. 411b; 411c, may be predefined as a fraction of the suitable burst interval, e.g. 410b; 410c, and/or as a fraction of the subsequent burst interval, e.g. 410c. For example may the end portion be predefined as a percentage, e.g. 25%, of the suitable burst interval or a percentage of its silence period, and/or the begin period may be predefined as another or the same percentage, e.g. 25%, of the subsequent burst interval or a percentage of its transmission period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Teslenko-Martin-Sang to substitute communication path from Ihlar for service flow from Teslenko-Martin-Sang to figure out about current conditions in the network and thereby for example get indication if there is congestion or other problems, or potential such problems ahead (Ihlar, page 2, paragraph 17).
Claim(s) 13-14, 18 & 22-23, 27 is/are directed to system and non-transitory computer readable medium claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 4-5, 9. Therefore, claim(s) 13-14, 18 & 22-23, 27 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 4-5, 9.
Claim(s) 30 is/are directed to system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 9. Therefore, claim(s) 30 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument(s) filed 10/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance that: A) with respect to claims 1, 10, 19 & 28; By switching the monitoring from the core network domain to the UE, the UE would be unable to monitor the identified traffic type by the other UEs. Thus, modifying Teslenko, which is not a UE based method, to have the UE perform the features of independent claim 1 would improperly render Teslenko unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and/or improperly changes the principle of operation of Teslenko. See, e.g., MPEP 2143.01(V) and MPEP 2143.01(V1). Similarly, Martin is directed to methods and apparatus for accessing selectable application processing of data packets in an adaptive private network (APN). Martin at title. Martin performs analytics in a core-network node, not a UE. Thus, modifying Martin, which is not a UE based method, to have the UE perform the features of independent claim 1 would improperly render Martin unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and/or improperly changes the principle of operation of Martin. See, e.g., MPEP 2143.01(V) and MPEP 2143.01(VD) (page 13-`5); B) with respect to claims 1, 10, 19 & 28; Sang uses a quality of service (QoS) threshold but does not compare instantaneous throughput against a threshold and does not generate per burst metrics. The Office Action appears to equate the claimed “one or more throughput bursts” to the “burst interval’ in Thlar. However, even if the claimed “one or more throughput bursts” are equivalent to the “burst interval” in Ihlar (which Applicant does not concede), Applicant submits that Ihlar fails to disclose that the one or more observation features are determined both within an observation period and based on one or more throughput bursts, where the one or more throughput bursts comprises a period of time in which a throughput of the one or more applications is above a threshold, as recited in independent claim 1; and the Office Action has not made such a showing (page 15-16).
In response to A); By switching the monitoring from the core network domain to the UE, the UE would be still be able to monitor the identified traffic type by the other UEs. Thus, modifying Teslenko, which is not a UE based method, to have the UE perform the features of independent claim 1 would not be improperly render Teslenko unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and/or improperly changes the principle of operation of Teslenko as stated by the Applicant. The primary reference, Teslenko discloses every feature of the claim limitations (Teslenko, page 1, paragraph 7; page 2, paragraph 18 & 23; page 6, paragraph 94) except the monitoring, determination, predicting and applying by the core network. According to figure 1 of the Teslenko, the core network is able to do the sending/requesting the network traffic and monitoring report. Therefore, the core network definitely able to be “interchanging” or would be replacing with the UE of the Sang reference. Sang discloses the monitoring, determination, predicting by the UE (Sang, page 4, paragraph 64 & 66; page 5, paragraph 72; page 6, paragraph 79; page 7, paragraph 92). Furthermore, according to Wikipedia (Wikipedia: However, in some network models, a single machine can act as both a client and a server, and with the use of technologies like WebSockets, the communication becomes bidirectional, where both can initiate data transfers after the initial connection is established). Therefore, swapping the role of the core network with the UE would not be improper or change the principle of the operation as claimed by the Applicant. Therefore, Teslenko-Sang meets the claim limitation.
In response to B); Sang does teach the claimed limitation of “based on one or more throughput bursts, the one or more throughput bursts comprising a period of time in which a throughput of the one or more applications is above a threshold (Sang, page 4, paragraph 66; page 6, paragraph 79; ; page 7, paragraph 92; i.e., [0066] UE 402 determines whether to perform traffic offload. In one novel aspect, UE 402 uses non-intrusive probing to estimate the throughput. UE 402 determines that the offloading is needed and feasible, UE 402 may use the allocated resource during the probing process for traffic offloading without releasing it. In other embodiment, the resources are released upon receiving the probe responses. UE 402 subsequently determines whether to offload the traffic and the bandwidth required for the offloading; [0079] FIG. 7 shows an exemplary flow chart of the UE determining whether to offload the traffic based on the association status and QoS requirements in accordance with embodiments of the current invention. At step 701, the UE monitors the association status of each radio access link. At step 702, the UE monitors the application and/or data flaw's QoS requirements. At step 704, the UE obtains the QoS requirement value for the application/flow. At step 705, the UE dynamically estimates the throughput for each radio access network based on the association status and the QoS requirement value. At step 706, the UE compares the estimated throughputs for each radio access network. At step 707, the UE determines whether to perform traffic offload. If step 707 determines yes, the UE performs traffic offload; [0092] The dynamic real time measurements are further processed to determine the end-to-end throughput and traffic offloading decisions. At step 911, the UE determines if the traffic is QoS traffic with association to access A, and the current performance is below a predefined threshold). Furthermore, Sang is not just compare
the QoS requirement, but also compare the offloading traffic. The definition of throughput is “the actual rate at which data is successfully transmitted over a network or communication channel, measured in bits per second (bps) or other units”. Clearly, the UE compare and determine whether to offload the traffic based on the QoS threshold, which can include the transmission rating.
In addition, Ihlar also discloses comparing the threshold of the burst (Ihlar, page 5, paragraph 57; i.e., [0057] It may e.g. be defined a threshold so that it can be
determined whether acknowledgment packets observed after a burst can be used to calculate a reliable RTT. If there e.g. is a quiescence period that spans a time before and after the next burst transmission, during which no packets are observed, the burst interval used can be identified as suitable, and it may, after observing a set of packets that are acknowledgements, be deemed possible to estimate latency reliably). Therefore, Teslenko-Sang in view of Ihlar meets the claim limitation.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Listing of Relevant Arts
Bader, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20230261996 A1 discloses machine learning and estimated of the QoE level and the type of data traffic.
Wang, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20220222688 A1 discloses machine learning and predictive categories of the text string.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.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.
/THUONG NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights