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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the appeal brief filed on Nov. 3, 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JAE Y LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koenning et al. (US 2021/0258248 A1), hereinafter “KOENNING”.
Regarding claim 1, KOENNING teaches, ‘A method for processing network data, comprising:’ (Paragraph [0003], a method implemented in cooperation with a network traffic management system):
‘receiving a data packet at a first processor having a non-transient data memory;’ (Paragraph [0038], The network processing node 114 can include one or more processor(s) 410 … and memory 430. Paragraph [0040], Network packets can be received by the network processing node 114);
‘storing the data packet in the non-transient data memory;’ (Paragraph [0040], Network packets can be … stored in the packet data buffer 450);
‘accessing one or more first data fields of the data packet in the data memory;’ (Paragraph [0037], one packet flow can include all of the network packets that originate from a single source (e.g., from a network address of a particular subscriber). … the packet forwarding logic 360 can parse the incoming packets to determine various fields of the packets, and determine which, if any, of the rules match the incoming packet. Paragraph [0027], a source or destination network address of the traffic can be used as a key for a subscriber database);
‘determining whether a device is bandwidth limited as a function of the first data fields being associated with an application;’ (Paragraph [0027], a source or destination network address of the traffic can be used as a key for a subscriber database … The information about the subscriber can include … network policies, … subscriber device capabilities … a subscriber plan may allow voice and text messaging, but block streaming video. Paragraph [0040], the policy enforcement logic 460 can determine how much bandwidth a subscriber is used, how much bandwidth the subscriber is allocated, and whether forwarding the current packet of the subscriber would cause a subscriber to use more bandwidth than allocated);
‘transmitting the data packet to a second processor over a network if it is determined that the
device is not bandwidth limited;’ (Paragraph [0040], if the subscriber has remaining bandwidth for the measurement period, the current packet of the subscriber can be forwarded toward the intended destination (corresponds to processor of destination). Paragraph [0027], The intended destination can be a host having the address that matches the destination address of the network packet);
‘determining whether the device has reached a limit if it is determined that the device is bandwidth limited;’ (Paragraph [0040], The policy enforcement logic 460 can … determine … whether forwarding the current packet … would cause a subscriber to use more bandwidth than allocated);
‘transmitting the data packet to the second processor over the network if it is determined that
the limit has not been reached;’ (Paragraph [0051], when the network policy for the subscriber enables the network traffic to be sent, the network traffic can be forwarded);
‘and deleting the data packet without transmitting the data packet if it is determined that the
limit has been reached.’ (Paragraph [0040], If the subscriber is out of bandwidth for the measurement period, the current packet of the subscriber can be dropped).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 17, KOENNING teaches, the method of claim 1 further comprising, ‘accessing one or more second data fields of the data packet in the data memory.’ (Paragraph [0027], The network processing node can analyze network traffic to determine a subscriber associated with the traffic and a type of the network traffic. ... The network policies can include blacklists and/or whitelists of Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) and quotas and/or quality of service rules for various types of network traffic … subscriber plan may allow voice and text messaging, but block streaming video).
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 18, KOENNING teaches, the method of claim 2 further comprising, ‘determining whether the device is bandwidth limited as a function of the second data fields being associated with a group of applications.’ (Paragraph [0027], The network processing node can analyze network traffic to determine a subscriber associated with the traffic and a type of the network traffic. ... The network policies can include blacklists and/or whitelists of Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) and quotas and/or quality of service rules for various types of network traffic … subscriber plan may allow voice and text messaging, but block streaming video. Paragraph [0050], The network processing node can identify a type of the network packet, such as by identifying a protocol and an
application layer of the packet. … As a specific example, packets including voice data can be given priority over packets including other data. As another example, the network policy can limit the
amount of voice data a subscriber can use in a given month, or other period of time, while allowing and unlimited amount of Short Message Service (SMS) data for the subscriber).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 19, KOENNING teaches, the method of claim 2 further comprising, ‘determining whether the device is bandwidth limited as a function of the second data fields being associated with a group of users.’ (Paragraph [0027], The network processing node can analyze network traffic to determine a subscriber associated with the traffic and a type of the network traffic. ... The network policies can include blacklists and/or whitelists of Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) and quotas and/or quality of service rules for various types of network traffic … subscriber plan may allow voice and text messaging, but block streaming video. Paragraph [0044], Specifically, subscribers with similar subscription plans, and applying similar network policies, can be grouped together. Paragraph [0050], The network processing node can identify the subscriber using a network address (e.g., either the source or the destination network address) of a network packet. Paragraph [0050], different policies can apply to different types of network packets … the network policy can limit the amount of … data a subscriber can use).
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 20, KOENNING teaches, the method of claim 2 further comprising, KOENNING further teaches, ‘determining whether the device is bandwidth limited as a function of the second data fields being associated with a time of day.’ (Paragraph [0027], The network processing node can analyze network traffic to determine a subscriber associated with the traffic and a type of the network traffic. ... The network policies can include blacklists and/or whitelists of Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) and quotas and/or quality of service rules for various types of network traffic … subscriber plan may allow voice and text messaging, but block streaming video. Each network processing node can perform analytics on the network traffic such as URIs that are visited, types of network traffic that are consumed, time of day when the network traffic is consumed, and so forth. The analysis can be used to update the subscriber information so that the network policies can be enforced and traffic can be managed).
Regarding claim 10, KOENNING teaches, ‘A method for processing network data, comprising:’ (Paragraph [0003], a method implemented in cooperation with a network traffic management system):
‘receiving a data packet at a first processor having a non- transient data memory;’ (Paragraph [0038], The network processing node 114 can include one or more processor(s) 410 … and memory 430. Paragraph [0040], Network packets can be received by the network processing node 114);
‘storing the data packet in the non-transient data memory;’ (Paragraph [0040], Network packets can be … stored in the packet data buffer 450);
‘accessing one or more first data fields of the data packet in the data memory;’ (Paragraph [0037], one packet flow can include all of the network packets that originate from a single source (e.g., from a network address of a particular subscriber). … the packet forwarding logic 360 can parse the incoming packets to determine various fields of the packets, and determine which, if any, of the rules match the incoming packet. Paragraph [0027], a source or destination network address of the traffic can be used as a key for a subscriber database);
‘determining whether a device is bandwidth limited as a function of the first data fields being associated with an application and a total amount of data that has been used;’ (Paragraph [0027], a source or destination network address of the traffic can be used as a key for a subscriber database … The information about the subscriber can include … network policies, … subscriber device capabilities … a subscriber plan may allow voice and text messaging, but block streaming video. Paragraph [0040], the policy enforcement logic 460 can determine how much bandwidth a subscriber is used, how much bandwidth the subscriber is allocated, and whether forwarding the current packet of the subscriber would cause a subscriber to use more bandwidth than allocated. The amount of bandwidth used by the current packet can be added to the total of the subscriber bandwidth used);
‘transmitting the data packet to a second processor over a network if it is determined that the
device is not bandwidth limited;’ (Paragraph [0040], if the subscriber has remaining bandwidth for the measurement period, the current packet of the subscriber can be forwarded toward the intended destination (corresponds to processor of destination). Paragraph [0027], The intended destination can be a host having the address that matches the destination address of the network packet);
‘determining whether the device has reached a data limit if it is determined that the device is bandwidth limited;’ (Paragraph [0040], The policy enforcement logic 460 can … determine … whether forwarding the current packet … would cause a subscriber to use more bandwidth than allocated);
‘transmitting the data packet to the second processor over the network if it is determined that the data limit has not been reached;’ (Paragraph [0051], when the network policy for the subscriber enables the network traffic to be sent, the network traffic can be forwarded);
‘and deleting the data packet without transmitting the data packet if it is determined that the
data limit has been reached.’ (Paragraph [0040], If the subscriber is out of bandwidth for the measurement period, the current packet of the subscriber can be dropped).
Regarding claim 16, KOENNING teaches, ‘A method for processing network data, comprising:’ (Paragraph [0003], a method implemented in cooperation with a network traffic management system):
‘receiving a data packet at a first processor having a non- transient data memory;’ (Paragraph [0038], The network processing node 114 can include one or more processor(s) 410 … and memory 430. Paragraph [0040], Network packets can be received by the network processing node 114);
‘storing the data packet in the non-transient data memory;’ (Paragraph [0040], Network packets can be … stored in the packet data buffer 450);
‘accessing one or more first data fields of the data packet in the data memory;’ (Paragraph [0037], one packet flow can include all of the network packets that originate from a single source (e.g., from a network address of a particular subscriber). … the packet forwarding logic 360 can parse the incoming packets to determine various fields of the packets, and determine which, if any, of the rules match the incoming packet. Paragraph [0027], a source or destination network address of the traffic can be used as a key for a subscriber database);
‘determining whether one of a plurality of devices associated with a subscriber is bandwidth limited as a function of the first data fields;’ (Paragraph [0027], a source or destination network address of the traffic can be used as a key for a subscriber database … The information about the subscriber can include … network policies, … subscriber device capabilities … a subscriber plan may allow voice and text messaging, but block streaming video. Paragraph [0040], the policy enforcement logic 460 can determine how much bandwidth a subscriber is used, how much bandwidth the subscriber is allocated, and whether forwarding the current packet of the subscriber would cause a subscriber to use more bandwidth than allocated. Paragraph [0022], The subscriber device 140A can be assigned multiple network addresses … All of the network addresses 141A-C and 142A-C are allocated so that they are different from each other. Paragraph [0050], the network policy can limit the amount of … data a subscriber can use);
‘transmitting the data packet to a second processor over a network if it is determined that the
device is not bandwidth limited;’ (Paragraph [0040], if the subscriber has remaining bandwidth for the measurement period, the current packet of the subscriber can be forwarded toward the intended destination (corresponds to processor of destination). Paragraph [0027], The intended destination can be a host having the address that matches the destination address of the network packet);
‘determining whether the device has reached a limit if it is determined that the device is bandwidth limited;’ (Paragraph [0040], The policy enforcement logic 460 can … determine … whether forwarding the current packet … would cause a subscriber to use more bandwidth than allocated);
‘transmitting the data packet to the second processor over the network if it is determined that the limit has not been reached;’ (Paragraph [0051], when the network policy for the subscriber enables the network traffic to be sent, the network traffic can be forwarded);
‘and deleting the data packet without transmitting the data packet if it is determined that the
limit has been reached.’ (Paragraph [0040], If the subscriber is out of bandwidth for the measurement period, the current packet of the subscriber can be dropped).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOENNING in view of Raleigh et al. (US 2026/0005945 A1), hereinafter “RALEIGH”.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, KOENNING teaches, the method of claim 1 further comprising, KOENNING does not explicitly teach but RALEIGH teaches, ‘transmitting a notification to a user if it is determined that the limit has been reached.’ (RALEIGH - Paragraph [0220], In some embodiments, the pre-launch user notification information indicates one or more of: typical service usage or cost, or projected service usage or cost for the service activity attempting to launch. In some embodiments, the user sets limitations on access for one or more service activities and once this limit is hit then when the service activities with exceeded limits attempt to launch the user is notified).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of RALEIGH with KOENNING because both are in the same/similar field of endeavor. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of RALEIGH into KOENNING is that RALEIGH provides monitoring of user interaction with the service activity, monitoring of user interaction with the device, the state of UI priority for the service activity, and/or a policy update/modification/change from the network. In some embodiments, the network service usage control policy is based on updated activity behavior response to a network capacity controlled service classification. In some embodiments, the network service usage control policy is based on updated user input/preferences (e.g., related to policies/ controls for network capacity controlled services). In some embodiments, the network service usage control policy is based on network busy state or availability state for alternative networks. (See Paragraph [0262], RALEIGH)
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOENNING in view of RALEIGH in view of Sennett et al. (US 2009/0247204 A1), hereinafter “SENNETT”.
Regarding claim 7, KOENNING and RALEIGH teach, the method of claim 6 further comprising, KOENNING and RALEIGH do not explicitly teach but SENNETT teaches, ‘receiving a request from the user to increase the limit’. (SENNETT - Paragraph [0022], a user sends a request for additional bandwidth via mobile device 42 at step 56. The request is provided via cellular network 44 to a wireless network 46 at step 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of SENNETT with KOENNING and RALEIGH because both are in the same/similar field of endeavor. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of SENNETT into KOENNING and RALEIGH is that SENNETT provides that public safety usage of a serving network is analyzed to determine if a predetermined usage threshold has been reached and/or to predict when additional bandwidth will need to be allocated. A public safety application, executing on a call processing server for example, can then inform a customer usage application that additional bandwidth is needed in the specific area. The request for additional bandwidth can be initiated automatically by the public safety application and/or can be manually initiated by an authorized public safety individual. If there is no unused spectrum available, the commercial usage application can identify active voice and/or data sessions for preemption. The identified sessions can then be preempted in accordance with priority and the additional bandwidth made available for public use. (See Paragraph [0004], SENNETT)
Regarding claim 8, KOENNING and RALEIGH teach, the method of claim 7 further comprising, KOENNING and RALEIGH do not explicitly teach but SENNETT teaches, ‘determining whether additional bandwidth is available in response to the request.’ (SENNETT - Paragraph [0022], Upon receipt of the request, the call processing server 52 determines if the requester is authorized to request additional bandwidth… If the call processing server 52 determines that the requester is authorized to request additional bandwidth, the call processing server 52 then determines if bandwidth is available in the shared spectrum... For example at step 64 the call processing server 52 can query the database 54 to determine if the requester is on a list of authorized requesters. Also at step 64 the call processing server 52 can query a database 54 to obtain an indication of available bandwidth in the shared spectrum. At step 66, the database 54 provides responses to the queries received via step 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of SENNETT with KOENNING and RALEIGH because both are in the same/similar field of endeavor. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of SENNETT into KOENNING and RALEIGH is that SENNETT provides that public safety usage of a serving network is analyzed to determine if a predetermined usage threshold has been reached and/or to predict when additional bandwidth will need to be allocated. A public safety application, executing on a call processing server for example, can then inform a customer usage application that additional bandwidth is needed in the specific area. The request for additional bandwidth can be initiated automatically by the public safety application and/or can be manually initiated by an authorized public safety individual. If there is no unused spectrum available, the commercial usage application can identify active voice and/or data sessions for preemption. The identified sessions can then be preempted in accordance with priority and the additional bandwidth made available for public use. (See Paragraph [0004], SENNETT)
Regarding claim 9, KOENNING and RALEIGH teach, The method of claim 8 further comprising, KOENNING and RALEIGH do not explicitly teach but SENNETT teaches, ‘increasing the limit if it is determined that additional bandwidth is available’. (SENNETT - Paragraph [0022], When available bandwidth is determined to exist, the call processing server 52 determines if the available bandwidth is in use. If the available bandwidth is not in use, the call processing server 52 allocates the bandwidth to the requester. If the available bandwidth is in use, the call processing server 52 preempts the user using the available bandwidth and reallocates the bandwidth to the requester).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of SENNETT with KOENNING and RALEIGH because both are in the same/similar field of endeavor. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of SENNETT into KOENNING and RALEIGH is that SENNETT provides that public safety usage of a serving network is analyzed to determine if a predetermined usage threshold has been reached and/or to predict when additional bandwidth will need to be allocated. A public safety application, executing on a call processing server for example, can then inform a customer usage application that additional bandwidth is needed in the specific area. The request for additional bandwidth can be initiated automatically by the public safety application and/or can be manually initiated by an authorized public safety individual. If there is no unused spectrum available, the commercial usage application can identify active voice and/or data sessions for preemption. The identified sessions can then be preempted in accordance with priority and the additional bandwidth made available for public use. (See Paragraph [0004], SENNETT)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAESHIL J CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-5409. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached on 571-270-3936. 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.
/HAESHIL JESSICA CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2479 /JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479