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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 1/20/2026. Claims 1-4 and 9-12 have been amended. Claims 5-8 and 13-15 have been canceled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-4 and 9-12 are pending and an action is as follows.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 9, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US 2023/0075817 (hereinafter Wang), in view of MUHAMMAD et al. US 2022/0151006.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches
a method performed by first node for a flow control in a network
([Wang, Fig. 1, Node 120, ¶3 (flow control in a network)] Node 120, interpreted as the first node in a network, performs the method as follows.)
the method comprising:
receiving, from a second node, flow control feedback information, including a routing identifier and information on a buffer status associated with the second node;
([Wang, Fig. 1, ¶36-¶38 and ¶50-¶52] Wang teaches that Node 110-2 is the claimed second node. Node 120 receives from Node 110-2 a congestion indication (interpreted as the claimed flow control feedback information) comprising the ID of a Node 110-1 (interpreted as the claimed routing identifier), wherein the ID of Node 110-1 is interpreted as the routing identifier because it identifies a node within the network to which traffic is to be routed either to or from which aligns with the “routing identifier” functions disclosed in the Applicant’s Specification as filed (Which is noted as not being explicitly defined by the Applicant but instead recited as being related to a routing destination [Applicant’s Specification, ¶145], however it is further noted by the Examiner that a routing destination may be any of an intermediate destination or a ultimate/final destination similar to that which is disclosed by Wang), and the congestion indication also includes buffer congestion information of Node 110-1 which is indicated as reaching a buffer congestion threshold. The buffer congestion information of Node 110-1 which is indicated as reaching a buffer congestion threshold is considered by the Examiner to be functionally the same as the claimed buffer status information associated with the second node because the second node (Node 110-2) of Wang is associated with any child node buffer (including the buffer of child node Node 110-1). The claims only require the node to have an association with the buffer. Association (with the buffer or its status) is not interpreted by the Examiner to mean possession (of the buffer or its status) and therefore, the Examiner reasonably believes that the buffer status of the Node 110-1 which is a child node of Node 110-2 is at least buffer status that is associated with the parent node (Node 110-2). It is further noted that this congestion indication (comprising the claimed routing identifier (ID of Node 110-1) and the buffer status associated with the second node (the buffer congestion information of Node 110-1 associated with the parent node, Node 110-2)) is sent by Node 110-2 and received by Node 120.)
determining whether a link associated with the second node is congested based on flow control feedback information received from the second node; and ([Wang, Fig. 1-4, Step 2025, Step 320 and Step 420, ¶35, ¶50 and ¶64] In step 420 Node 120 receives congestion indication to determine that the first backhaul (interpreted as the claimed link associated with the second node) is congested based on the received congestion indication information received from Node 110-2.)
Performing, based on the determination, load balancing, wherein the second node is a child node of the first node ([Wang, Figs. 1 and 3, Step 330, ¶53-¶55 and ¶58] In step 320, based on the determination that the first backhaul is congested based on the received congestion information from child node 110-1, the parent node 120 performs load balancing by coordinating backhaul switching through configuration/instruction procedures of node 110-1 to switch between the first backhaul and a second backhaul for routing purposes based on respective switching thresholds of each of the first backhaul and the second backhaul.)
PNG
media_image1.png
312
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But it does not teach performing a load balancing based on the determination that the link associated with the second node is congested.
However, MUHAMMAD teaches performing a load balancing based on the determination that the link associated with the second node is congested.
([MUHAMMAD, ¶167, ¶171-¶174 (parent node 16 receives the information comprising link congestion information from child node) and ¶178 (the parent node 16 performs load balancing based on the information)] the parent node 16 (noted in Wang as Node 120 as shown above) performs load balancing based on the determination that the link associated with the child node is congested.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wang, indicating the method of determining congestion at a child node by a parent node, with the teachings of MUHAMMAD, indicating that the parent node may using information of the link congestion associated with a child node. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability dynamically change the routing on the basis of load balancing configuration for better responsiveness, improved data rate and latency, and reduce service interruption [MUHAMMAD, ¶47 and ¶143-¶144].
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches a first node for flow control in a network, the first node [Wang, Figs. 1 and 5, ¶3 (flow control in network) and ¶66-¶67 (first node as network device 120)]
comprising:
at least one transceiver; and [Wang, Fig. 5, Transmitter/Receiver (TX/RX) 540, ¶66-¶67]
at least one processor communicatively coupled to at least one transceiver [Wang, Fig. 5, Processor 510 of the Processing circuitry 550 communicatively coupled to TX/RX 540]
the at least one processor configured to:
receive, from a second node, flow control feedback information including a routing identifier and information on a buffer status associated with the second node,
([Wang, Fig. 1, ¶36-¶38 and ¶50-¶52] Wang teaches that Node 110-2 is the claimed second node. Node 120 receives from Node 110-2 a congestion indication (interpreted as the claimed flow control feedback information) comprising the ID of a Node 110-1 (interpreted as the claimed routing identifier), wherein the ID of Node 110-1 is interpreted as the routing identifier because it identifies a node within the network to which traffic is to be routed either to or from which aligns with the “routing identifier” functions disclosed in the Applicant’s Specification as filed (Which is noted as not being explicitly defined by the Applicant but instead recited as being related to a routing destination [Applicant’s Specification, ¶145], however it is further noted by the Examiner that a routing destination may be any of an intermediate destination or a ultimate/final destination similar to that which is disclosed by Wang), and the congestion indication also includes buffer congestion information of Node 110-1 which is indicated as reaching a buffer congestion threshold. The buffer congestion information of Node 110-1 which is indicated as reaching a buffer congestion threshold is considered by the Examiner to be functionally the same as the claimed buffer status information associated with the second node because the second node (Node 110-2) of Wang is associated with any child node buffer (including the buffer of child node Node 110-1). The claims only require the node to have an association with the buffer. Association (with the buffer or its status) is not interpreted by the Examiner to mean possession (of the buffer or its status) and therefore, the Examiner reasonably believes that the buffer status of the Node 110-1 which is a child node of Node 110-2 is at least buffer status that is associated with the parent node (Node 110-2). It is further noted that this congestion indication (comprising the claimed routing identifier (ID of Node 110-1) and the buffer status associated with the second node (the buffer congestion information of Node 110-1 associated with the parent node, Node 110-2)) is sent by Node 110-2 and received by Node 120.)
determine whether a link associated with the second node is congested based on the flow control feedback information, and
([Wang, Fig. 1-4, Step 2025, Step 320 and Step 420, ¶35, ¶50 and ¶64] In step 420 Node 120 receives congestion indication to determine that the first backhaul (interpreted as the claimed link associated with the second node) is congested based on the received congestion indication information received from Node 110-2.)
perform, based on the determination, load balancing, wherein the second node is a child node of the first node.
([Wang, Figs. 1 and 3, Step 330, ¶53-¶55 and ¶58] In step 320, based on the determination that the first backhaul is congested based on the received congestion information from child node 110-1, the parent node 120 performs load balancing by coordinating backhaul switching through configuration/instruction procedures of node 110-1 to switch between the first backhaul and a second backhaul for routing purposes based on respective switching thresholds of each of the first backhaul and the second backhaul.)
PNG
media_image1.png
312
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But it does not teach performing a load balancing based on the determination that the link associated with the second node is congested.
However, MUHAMMAD teaches performing a load balancing based on the determination that the link associated with the second node is congested.
([MUHAMMAD, ¶167, ¶171-¶174 (parent node 16 receives the information comprising link congestion information from child node) and ¶178 (the parent node 16 performs load balancing based on the information)] the parent node 16 (noted in Wang as Node 120 as shown above) performs load balancing based on the determination that the link associated with the child node is congested.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wang, indicating the method of determining congestion at a child node by a parent node, with the teachings of MUHAMMAD, indicating that the parent node may using information of the link congestion associated with a child node. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability dynamically change the routing on the basis of load balancing configuration for better responsiveness, improved data rate and latency, and reduce service interruption [MUHAMMAD, ¶47 and ¶143-¶144].
Regarding claim 2 and claim 10, Wang teaches the method of claim 1 and the first node of claim 9 respectively, wherein the load balancing comprises rerouting traffic across another link. ([Wang, ¶54-¶60] The claimed load balancing comprising switching traffic across a second backhauls (interpreted as the claimed another link) associated with node 110-1 (interpreted as the claimed second node). It is also further noted that some embodiments, the network device may determine that the first backhaul is congested, which is caused by the congestion between the network device 110-2 and the network device 110-4 and therefore the network device 110-2 may switch the portion of the first backhaul to the network device 110-5, which involves the rerouting traffic across another link as shown in Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 4 and claim 12, Wang teaches the method of claim 1 and the first node of claim 9 respectively, wherein the flow control feedback information includes information on buffer status associated with a third node, and wherein the third node is a child node of the second node or a child node of the first node.
([Wang, Fig. 1, ¶48 and ¶51 Wang teaches wherein the congestion indication (interpreted as the claimed flow control feedback information) is information for a buffer status of the third node (Node 110-1) and is therefore associated with the third node (Node 110-1), wherein the third node (Node 110-1) is a child node of the second node (Node 110-2) [Wang, Fig. 1, ¶51])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search of the available Patent and Non-Patent Literature and was unable to find any prior art which teaches either solely or in combination with another reference the claim limitations of “the method of claim 1, wherein the flow control feedback information is control PDU for flow control feedback per routing identity” or “the first node of claim 9, wherein the flow control feedback information is control PDU for flow control feedback per routing identity”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, “Claim 1, as amended, renders the rejection moot because Wang as cited in the Office Action does not teach or suggest at least to "receiving, from a second node, flow control feedback information including a routing identifier and information on buffer status associated with the second node; performing a load balancing based on the determination that the link associated with the second node is congested" as recited in claim 1… Claim 1 recites that the second node transmits raw status data (“information on a buffer status”) to the first node and it is the first node (parent) that analyzes this feedback to “determine” whether the link is congested. In other words, Claim 1 describes that the parent node is enabled to make centralized and intelligent decisions based on the reported buffer status, rather than just reacting to a congestion flag as cited in Wang. While Wang broadly discloses the congestion control determined by a second node itself, Wang however fails to disclose that the interaction between the first and second nodes to determine the congestion of the link as recited in Claim 1… In the cited portion, Wang further discloses a backhaul ID or a device ID to identify a physical link or device. Consequently, Wang's disclosure provides a remedy to switch the entire backhaul path for the device, affecting all traffic on that link. In contrast, Claim 1 recites the "routing identifier" to allow the first node to perform load balancing specifically for traffic associated with that routing identifier, rather than switching the entire physical link as cited in Wang. Wang does not further teach or suggest a buffer status linked to specific routing identifiers to enable such granular load balancing as recited in Claim 1. Merely disclosing the identifier to switch the path as cited in Wang does not teach or suggest the claimed elements of Claim 1.”
The Examiner disagrees, as the claims do not recite that the second node transmits “raw status data” and therefore the claims do not require this feature. The claims only require that the information on buffer status associated with the second node be received by a first node.
Additionally, The Examiner notes in the disclosure, [Wang, Fig. 1, ¶36-¶38 and ¶50-¶52] Wang teaches that Node 110-2 is the claimed second node. Node 120 receives from Node 110-2 a congestion indication (interpreted as the claimed flow control feedback information) comprising the ID of a Node 110-1 (interpreted as the claimed routing identifier), wherein the ID of Node 110-1 is interpreted as the routing identifier because it identifies a node within the network to which traffic is to be routed either to or from which aligns with the “routing identifier” functions disclosed in the Applicant’s Specification as filed (Which is noted as not being explicitly defined by the Applicant but instead recited as being related to a routing destination [Applicant’s Specification, ¶145], however it is further noted by the Examiner that a routing destination may be any of an intermediate destination or a ultimate/final destination similar to that which is disclosed by Wang), and the congestion indication also includes buffer congestion information of Node 110-1 which is indicated as reaching a buffer congestion threshold. The buffer congestion information of Node 110-1 which is indicated as reaching a buffer congestion threshold is considered by the Examiner to be functionally the same as the claimed buffer status information associated with the second node because the second node (Node 110-2) of Wang is associated with any child node buffer (including the buffer of child node Node 110-1). The claims only require the node to have an association with the buffer. Association (with the buffer or its status) is not interpreted by the Examiner to mean possession (of the buffer or its status) and therefore, the Examiner reasonably believes that the buffer status of the Node 110-1 which is a child node of Node 110-2 is at least buffer status that is associated with the parent node (Node 110-2). It is further noted that this congestion indication (comprising the claimed routing identifier (ID of Node 110-1) and the buffer status associated with the second node (the buffer congestion information of Node 110-1 associated with the parent node, Node 110-2)) is sent by Node 110-2 and received by Node 120. [Wang, Fig. 1-4, Step 2025, Step 320 and Step 420, ¶35, ¶50 and ¶64] In step 420 Node 120 receives congestion indication to determine that the first backhaul (interpreted as the claimed link associated with the second node) is congested based on the received congestion indication information received from Node 110-2.
[Wang, Figs. 1 and 3, Step 330, ¶53-¶55 and ¶58] In step 320, based on the determination that the first backhaul is congested based on the received congestion information from child node 110-1, the parent node 120 performs load balancing by coordinating backhaul switching through configuration/instruction procedures of node 110-1 to switch between the first backhaul and a second backhaul for routing purposes based on respective switching thresholds of each of the first backhaul and the second backhaul.
However, MUHAMMAD is relied upon to teach the first network device performing a load balancing based on the determination that the link associated with the second node is congested.
([MUHAMMAD, ¶167, ¶171-¶174 (parent node 16 receives the information comprising link congestion information from child node) and ¶178 (the parent node 16 performs load balancing based on the information)] the parent node 16 (noted in Wang as Node 120 as shown above) performs load balancing based on the determination that the link associated with the child node is congested.)
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the specific routing identifiers enable such granular load balancing as recited in claim 1, the Examiner notes that this claim language is omitted from the instant claims but the Applicant may elect to amend the claims to include such claim limitations.
All the other claims are not allowable for the reasons expressed above, unless the Examiner has explicitly objected to those claims as indicated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONNIE V SWEET whose telephone number is (571)270-3622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
/LONNIE V SWEET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467