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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/31/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-14 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 103.
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 1-2, 4-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20250141843 A1) in view of Krishnaswamy (US 20230155950 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. teaches a network management apparatus, comprising one or more processors, at least one of the one or more processors being configured to perform (Paragraph 66, 71, The passage explicitly discloses communication devices with processors executing instructions to perform network operations): a determination process for determining an MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) value based on information acquired from an incoming packet, wherein the information includes properties of a path through which the packet is transmitted and the MTU value is optimized to a packet size without exceeding an available path MTU value, transmitted from a node constituting a wireless access network and received in a core network that aggregates a plurality of wireless access networks (Paragraph 42, 44–45, The passage teaches determining an MTU from an incoming packet using packet-derived information reflecting path characteristics and constraining packet size to a path-supported MTU); and an application process for applying the MTU value to an outgoing packet to be transmitted from the core network to the node ensuring the packet size does not exceed the MTU value thereby preventing fragmentation and ensuring efficient transmission over the path (Paragraph 59, 62–64, The passage teaches applying the MTU to outgoing packets by adjusting or fragmenting packets to ensure they do not exceed the MTU).
Liu et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the determination process sets a first packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to a group as the MTU value, and when a second packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to the group is larger than the first packet size, updates the second packet size as the MTU value.
However, Krishnaswamy teaches wherein the determination process sets a first packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to a group as the MTU value, and when a second packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to the group is larger than the first packet size, updates the second packet size as the MTU value (Paragraph 94, 98, 101, 121, These passages teach that the EPC sets MTU based on a first observed packet/MSS size for a UE (group member), and updates the MTU to a larger size when a subsequently received packet indicates a larger supported size, dynamically adjusting upward or downward based on received packet characteristics).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the determination process sets a first packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to a group as the MTU value, and when a second packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to the group is larger than the first packet size, updates the second packet size as the MTU value as taught by Krishnaswamy in the system of Liu et al., so that it would dynamically optimize the MTU value based on progressively observed packet size capabilities across grouped network nodes to reduce fragmentation, improve transmission efficiency, and adapt packet handling to changing path-supported transmission conditions within aggregated wireless access networks.
Regarding claim 2, Liu et al. teaches the determination process extracts property information on the wireless access network to which the node belongs from the incoming packet, and determines the MTU value based on the property information (Paragraph 42, 44, 45, 67, The node receives an ESP packet and determines the MTU using its payload length or path MTU, thus deriving MTU from properties in the incoming packet).
Regarding claim 4, Liu et al. teaches the incoming packet is a setup request message transmitted from the node (Paragraph 37, 42, 66, The ESP packet is the first packet sent from a node and triggers setup processing).
Regarding claim 5, Liu et al. teaches the incoming packet is a registration request message transmitted from a communication terminal via the wireless access network (Paragraph 37, 42, 66, 71, The ESP packet is sent from a terminal (UE) through the wireless network to a communication device, and it may encapsulate a registration request message).
Regarding claim 6, Liu et al. teaches the property information is information that is capable of identifying an operator owning the wireless access network (Paragraph 37, 42–44, 46–48, 59, 66–69, the MTU is determined per path and per node, where nodes include access network nodes, and this MTU information is included in messages like IKEv2 that identify which operator’s network path is used).
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al. teaches the property information includes at least one of a PLMN (Public Land Mobile Network), an MCC (Mobile Country Number), an MNC (Mobile Network Code), an International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI), a TAC (Tracking Area Code), a Cell ID, an S-NSSAI (Single-Network Slice Selection Assistance Information), a radio access network node ID, and an IP address (Paragraph 43, 61, 63, By describing reception, processing, and transmission of IP packets and explicitly referencing an IP header format and IPv4/IPv6 operation, the passage teaches use of IP-layer information).
Regarding claim 8, Liu et al. teaches when a plurality of pieces of property information are extracted from the incoming packet, the determination process determines the minimum value of the MTU values determined respectively based on the plurality of pieces of property information as a final MTU value (Paragraph 44, 59, MTU is determined from an incoming ESP packet by considering multiple path-related properties (the MTUs of respective nodes along the path) and selecting the minimum of the individually determined MTU values as the final MTU value).
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al. teaches the determination process determines the maximum value of a packet size of incoming packets transmitted from the same node as the MTU value (Paragraph 42, 44–45, 66, By receiving an initial fragment ESP packet from the same transmitting node and calculating the MTU directly from that packet’s payload length, the determination process effectively determines the maximum packet size of incoming packets from that node as the MTU value).
Regarding claim 11, Liu et al. teaches the application process applies the MTU value to outgoing packets to be transmitted from the core network to nodes in a group to which the node belongs (Paragraph 61–64, These passages teach that an application (packet sender) applies the notified MTU value to outgoing packets by reducing packet size or fragmenting packets based on the MTU before transmission from a network device toward other nodes along the path).
Regarding claim 12, Liu et al. teaches the application process determines nodes of which IP addresses are within a predetermined IP address range or nodes belong to the same subnet to be nodes belonging to the same group (Paragraph 37, 44, 59, The passage identifies multiple nodes along a communication path and treats them collectively based on shared path-related characteristics derived from IP-based packet transmission).
Regarding claim 13, Liu et al. teaches a network management method, comprising: determining an MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) value based on information acquired from an incoming packet, wherein the information includes properties of a path through which the packet is transmitted and the MTU value is optimized to a packet size without exceeding an available path MTU value, transmitted from a node constituting a wireless access network and received in a core network that aggregates a plurality of wireless access networks (Paragraph 42, 44–45, The passage teaches determining an MTU from an incoming packet using packet-derived information reflecting path characteristics and constraining packet size to a path-supported MTU); and applying the MTU value to an outgoing packet to be transmitted from the core network to the node ensuring the packet size does not exceed the MTU value thereby preventing fragmentation and ensuring efficient transmission over the path (Paragraph 59, 62–64, The passage teaches applying the MTU to outgoing packets by adjusting or fragmenting packets to ensure they do not exceed the MTU).
Liu et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the determination process sets a first packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to a group as the MTU value, and when a second packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to the group is larger than the first packet size, updates the second packet size as the MTU value.
However, Krishnaswamy teaches wherein the determination process sets a first packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to a group as the MTU value, and when a second packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to the group is larger than the first packet size, updates the second packet size as the MTU value (Paragraph 94, 98, 101, 121, These passages teach that the EPC sets MTU based on a first observed packet/MSS size for a UE (group member), and updates the MTU to a larger size when a subsequently received packet indicates a larger supported size, dynamically adjusting upward or downward based on received packet characteristics).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the determination process sets a first packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to a group as the MTU value, and when a second packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to the group is larger than the first packet size, updates the second packet size as the MTU value as taught by Krishnaswamy in the system of Liu et al., so that it would dynamically optimize the MTU value based on progressively observed packet size capabilities across grouped network nodes to reduce fragmentation, improve transmission efficiency, and adapt packet handling to changing path-supported transmission conditions within aggregated wireless access networks.
Regarding claim 14, Liu et al. teaches a network management system, comprising one or more processors, at least one of the one or more processors being configured to perform: a determination process for determining an MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) value based on information acquired from an incoming packet, wherein the information includes properties of a path through which the packet is transmitted and the MTU value is optimized to a packet size without exceeding an available path MTU value, transmitted from a node constituting a wireless access network and received in a core network that aggregates a plurality of wireless access networks (Paragraph 42, 44–45, The passage teaches determining an MTU from an incoming packet using packet-derived information reflecting path characteristics and constraining packet size to a path-supported MTU); and an application process for applying the MTU value to an outgoing packet to be transmitted from the core network to the node ensuring the packet size does not exceed the MTU value thereby preventing fragmentation and ensuring efficient transmission over the path (Paragraph 59, 62–64, The passage teaches applying the MTU to outgoing packets by adjusting or fragmenting packets to ensure they do not exceed the MTU).
Liu et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the determination process sets a first packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to a group as the MTU value, and when a second packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to the group is larger than the first packet size, updates the second packet size as the MTU value.
However, Krishnaswamy teaches wherein the determination process sets a first packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to a group as the MTU value, and when a second packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to the group is larger than the first packet size, updates the second packet size as the MTU value (Paragraph 94, 98, 101, 121, These passages teach that the EPC sets MTU based on a first observed packet/MSS size for a UE (group member), and updates the MTU to a larger size when a subsequently received packet indicates a larger supported size, dynamically adjusting upward or downward based on received packet characteristics).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the determination process sets a first packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to a group as the MTU value, and when a second packet size of a received packet transmitted from any node belonging to the group is larger than the first packet size, updates the second packet size as the MTU value as taught by Krishnaswamy in the system of Liu et al., so that it would dynamically optimize the MTU value based on progressively observed packet size capabilities across grouped network nodes to reduce fragmentation, improve transmission efficiency, and adapt packet handling to changing path-supported transmission conditions within aggregated wireless access networks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Lee et al. (US 10608947 B2)
Singh et al. (US 10594618 B1)
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 ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571) 272-3139. 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.
/ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/IQBAL ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights