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
Claims 1 and 7-9 are amended. Claims 10-12 are withdrawn. Claims 1-9 are pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 10/15/2024 have been fully considered.
Election/Restrictions
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant indicates Invention I (claims 1-7) has been elected. Claims 8 and 9 have been amended to proper their independencies, therefore, the claims are included in Invention I.
Claim Objections
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant indicates numerous issues including antecedent basis recited in the claims have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites numerous network components in the format of first uppercase letter follows by lowercase letters. This practice does not follow a proper format. Each element should be recited in all lowercase letters, e.g. “an End User device” should be “an end user device”, “ a Network Service Connection Point” should be “a network service connection point”, “an Access Controller device” should be “an access controller device”, “Enterprise Network” should “enterprise network” etc.,. Applicant is requested to review the claim(s) and make appropriate corrections
The beginning of each clause starts with an uppercase letter, e.g. “A subscription management system”, “An Access Controller device” etc., these are not in proper format, each of the words that starts with an uppercase letter at the beginning of each clause should be changed to lowercase letter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1
Lines 7 recites the limitation “permits a designated manager to control the number of End User Devices…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is requested.
Lines 9 and 18, 27, each line recites “the following function” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is requested.
Line 17 recites the limitation “an access controller device at each Enterprise Network …” It is unclear what each Enterprise Network is because line 5 recites “an Enterprise Network” and line 9 recites “the Enterprise Network”. There is only one Enterprise Network. Appropriate correction is requested.
Line 38 recites the limitation “… and acts as a gateway device for the Access Controllers on the Enterprise Network to connect to the wider Internet.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is requested.
Lines 40-41 recites the limitation “a plurality of active probes connected to the Enterprise Network that can detect when the network are congested and send this information to an edge controller…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what network does the claim refer to, furthermore, it is unclear what “this information” does the claim refers to and which entities perform the operations of detecting a congestion and sending information. Appropriate correction is requested.
Line 42 recites “A Traffic Monitor on the Internet Edge Router that can detect when the Enterprise Network is congested and send the information to the edge controller.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, e.g. the wider Internet. Appropriate correction is requested.
Lines 44-46 recite “The Edge Controller that receives traffic data from a number of Access Probes on the Enterprise Network and the Traffic Monitor on the Internet Edge network.” There is an insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is requested.
Regarding claims 2-9
Each of the claims recites “A system for claim 1”. These claims are dependent claims of claim 1, thus, they should recite “the system of claim 1.” Appropriate corrections are requested.
Claim 7 recites “…wherein the Access Controller Manager and an Edge Controller are housed in the same unit.” There is an insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, it is not clear which unit the claim is referring to and it is also not clear whether the cited “an Edge controller” refers to the Edge Controller recited in claim 1. Clarification and appropriate correction is requested.
Claim 9 recites “…wherein an End User Device can be disconnected to from the Enterprise Network and immediately reconnect when able without the need for undergoing any subscription process that was already done prior if the device still has an active subscription according to the Access Controller data. There are lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It is not clear what “the device” and “the access controller data” the claim is referring to. Furthermore it is not clear what applicant tries to convey in “to from” in the phrase “wherein an end user device can be disconnected to from the enterprise network.” Clarification and correction are requested.
There are other antecedent basis issues among the claims. Applicant is requested to review the claims and make appropriate corrections.
For the purpose of promoting compact prosecution, the claim(s) is interpreted broadly due to the above deficiencies.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dos Remedios et al. (US 2008/0130495), hereinafter Dos Remedios in view of Kotecha et al. (US 9,374,289), hereinafter Kotecha.
As for claim 1, Dos Remedios teaches a subscription-based system that designates a device known as an End User Device that uses a connection to the Internet as a point of bandwidth management rather than a Network Service Connection Point of an Enterprise Network, as well as manage traffic onsite to ensure a certain level of Quality of Service for users on the Enterprise Network (paragraphs [0026]-[0027] describe a model that controls bandwidth and QoS), and is comprised of the following components:
an access controller device at each Enterprise Network that has a designated maximum rate of allowable traffic known as an ACMaxRate and performs function (paragraphs [0011] and [0023]-[0024] describe access controllers that are located at every base stations/devices. The access controllers are provided with a designated QoS measurement threshold);
enforces bandwidth management policies when traffic on the Enterprise Network has exceeded its ACMaxRate (paragraph [0045] describes the access controllers distributes QoS policies provided by an access controller manager, to next layer or hierarchy of access controllers); and
an access control manager that performs the following functions:
adjusts the bandwidth of the Access Controller on the network (claim 1 recites an access controller manager which enforces QoS policies issues by the QoS manager to respective access controllers);
an Internet edge router that has a downstream interface facing the Enterprise Networks and one another interface Internet ER and acts as a connected to a Tier 1 or Tier 2 Internet Service Provider and act as a gateway device for the access controllers to the wider Internet on the Enterprise Network to connect to the wider internet (Fig. 2; Edge Router 203; paragraph [0023] describes an edge router located at a base station and directs respective dynamic bandwidth adjustment settings to respective lower layer access controllers);
a plurality of active probes connected to the Enterprise Network that can detect when the networks are congested and send this information to an edge controller (paragraph [0008]-[0012] describe a network that implements active probes which monitor network activity, and when a core link exceeds a congestion threshold, the active probe triggers an alert which is sent out to a QoS Manager);
a traffic monitor on the internet edge router that can detect when the Enterprise Network is congested and send the information to the edge controller (paragraph [0023] describes all traffic traversing through transport links of a network must be monitored and checked by a distribution of active probes. The active probes are responsible for determining whether or not the network is nearing congestion);
the edge controller that receives traffic data from a number of access probes on the Enterprise Network and the traffic monitor on the Internet edge network
Dos Remedios fails to teach
a subscription management system that allows for the following functions:
permits a designated manager to control the number of End User Devices permitted to connect to the Enterprise Network;
designates a MaxRate each device can reach while connected to said network;
designates a MinRate that each device is ensured to attain at all times, and
defines an end device Quality of Service with both parameters;
an access controller performs the following functions:
grants access to End User Devices to the Internet based on recorded subscription allowance parameter;
lowers the MaxRate of End User Devices on the network up to their MinRate;
an access control manager performs functions
stores the data of each access controller on the network, including subscriber allowance data; and
updates a subscriber list of the Access Controller;
Kotecha discloses
a subscription management system that allows for the following functions (col. 2, lines 50-55 describe a PCRF server):
permits a designated manager to control the number of End User Devices permitted to connect to the Enterprise Network (col. 2, lines 53-55 describe the PCRF server can be used to dynamically provision subscribers to manage network traffic);
designates a MaxRate each device can reach while connected to said network (col. 3, lines 40-47 describe the PCRF server makes policy decision relating to subscribers. The PCRF server can be used to raise or lower bandwidths (e.g., maximum bit rate or average maximum bit rate);
designates a MinRate that each device is ensured to attain at all times (col. 8, lines 59-64 describe policy information can be configured to reserve network bandwidth for subscribers who pay for QoS guarantee, reserve a minimal amount of bandwidth ), and
defines an end device Quality of Service with both parameters (col. 3, lines 40-50 describe the PCRF server can be used to raise or lower bandwidths (e.g. maximum bit rate or average maximum bit rate) of subscribers, charges subscribers for QoS guarantees; col. 8, lines 46-51 describe the PCRF server configures policy information to determine which policies should be applied to one or more specific subscribers; col. 8, lines 59-67 describe policy information is configured to reserve a minimal amount of bandwidth for each subscriber);
an access controller performs functions:
grants access to End User Devices to the Internet based on recorded subscription allowance parameter (col. 2, lines 42-47 describe a method of rate limiting, e.g. if a subscriber attempts to utilize more than their allotted bandwidth, the subscriber would be rate limited to their allotted bandwidth);
lowers the MaxRate of End User Devices on the network up to their MinRate (col. 8, lines 46-48 describe a process of configuring policy information that is performed by one or more server devices; col.8, lines 59-67 describe policy information is configured to throttle usage of heavy subscribers based on their subscriber information, reserve a minimal amount of bandwidth for each subscriber during their historic times of use; col. 9, lines 27-29 describe heavy subscribers are subscribers whose network usage, historically or currently, exceed their threshold level which is construed as maxrate);
an access control manager performs functions:
stores the data of each Access Controller on the network, including subscriber allowance data (col. 8, lines 9-23 describe one of more devices, including the PCRF server, configures subscriber information. The subscriber information includes information from subscriber databases which can indicate whether a subscriber opts to purchase QoS guarantees i.e. construed as subscriber allowance data);
adjusts the bandwidth of the Access Controller on the network (paragraph (col. 9, lines 57-67 describe rate limiting can be applied on a per base station basis. Rate limiting can be applied to base stations that have high network congestion causing QoS problems); and
updates a subscriber list of the access controller (col. 9, lines 27-36 describe subscribers can be classified into usage categories based on their current or pass usage).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Kotecha for implementing a number of servers that dynamically provisioning subscribers. The teachings of Eisen, when implemented in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to manage network traffic. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Kotecha in the Dos Remedios system in order to alleviate network congestion and satisfy subscribers’ QoS.
As for claim 7, the combined system of Dos Remedios and Kotecha teaches wherein the Access Controller Manager and an Edge Controller are housed in the same unit (Dos Remedios: paragraphs [0023]-[0024] describe the access controllers are located at every node).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dos Remedios (US 2008/0130495) in view of Kotecha (US 9,374,289) further in view of Eisen et al. (US 2022/0383315), hereinafter Eisen.
As for claim 2, the combined system of Dos Remedios and Kotecha fails to teach a system that requires the customer to sign into the enterprise network via a portal web page.
Eisen discloses
a system that requires the customer to sign into the enterprise network via a portal web page (paragraph [0181] describes a user accesses a webpage portal to conduct a transaction with a service provider, a QR code from an authentication system is provided to the user).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Eisen for providing a portal to a user. The teachings of Eisen, when implemented in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to manage business transactions. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Eisen in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system in order to provide a user an interface to register and provide their credentials to access a service provider system.
As for claim 3, the combined system of Dos Remedios and Kotecha fails to teach a system that allows users to sign in via the use of a Quick Response (QR) code.
Eisen discloses
a system that allows users to sign in via the use of a Quick Response (QR) code (paragraph [0181] describes the user scans the QR code).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Eisen for providing a portal to a user to which the user using a QR code. The teachings of Eisen, when implemented in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to manage business transactions. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Eisen in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system in order to provide a user an interface to register and provide their credentials to access a service provider system.
As for claim 4, the combined system of Dos Remedios and Kotecha fails to teach a system that allows users to register and be authenticated on the system.
Eisen discloses
a system that allows users to register and be authenticated on the system (paragraph [0181] describes the user scans the QR code and transmits to the authentication system which analyzes the QR code for identification of the user).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Eisen for providing a portal to a user to which the user using a QR code. The teachings of Eisen, when implemented in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to manage business transactions. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Eisen in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system in order to provide a user an interface to register and provide their credentials to access a service provider system.
As for claim 5, the combined system of Dos Remedios and Kotecha fails to teach a system that allows users to sign in via the use of an application program.
Eisen discloses
a system that allows users to sign in via the use of an application program (paragraph [0181] describes the user accesses a webpage portal to conduct a transaction).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Eisen for providing a portal to a user. The teachings of Eisen, when implemented in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to manage business transactions. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Eisen in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system in order to provide a user an interface to register and provide their credentials to access a service provider system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dos Remedios (US 2008/0130495) in view of Kotecha (US 9,374,289) further in view of Altay et al. (US 2021/0185601), hereinafter Altay.
As for claim 6. the combined system of Dos Remedios and Kotecha fails to teach a system that allows users to be registered in bulk in A system via a batch upload process.
Altay discloses
a system that allows users to be registered in bulk in A system via a batch upload process (paragraphs [0047]-[0048] describe a process of registering a group of user in batch-mode by registering UserIdentifiers).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Altay for registering a group of users in batch-mode. The teachings of Altay, when implemented in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to manage the registering of multiple users for a service. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Altay in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system in order to reduce system resources to process user registrations.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dos Remedios (US 2008/0130495) in view of Kotecha (US 9,374,289) further in view of Bashir et al. (US 2024/0179576), hereinafter Bashir.
As for claim 8, the combined system of Dos Remedios and Kotecha fails to teach a user is allowed to change subscription allowances freely without unused subscription expiring while no device is using it.
Bashir discloses
a user is allowed to change subscription allowances freely without unused subscription expiring while no device is using it (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0024]-[0032] describe a process of increasing aggregate maximum bit rates (AMBRs) for each subscriber of a plurality of subscribers after an adjustment. A subscriber who request an increase of AMBR by an amount, while other subscribers’ AMBRs are decreased).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Bashir for upgrading QoS attribute of a subscriber. The teachings of Bashir, when implemented in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to manage bandwidth of a subscriber-based system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Bashir in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system in order to provide the premium bit rate experience for a user.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dos Remedios (US 2008/0130495) in view of Kotecha (US 9,374,289) further in view of Canpolat et al. (US 2015/0223059), hereinafter Canpolat.
As for claim 9, the combined system of Dos Remedios and Kotecha fails to teach wherein an End User Device can be disconnected to from the Enterprise Network and immediately reconnect when able without the need for undergoing any subscription process that was already done prior if the device still has an active subscription according to the Access Controller data.
Canpolat discloses
wherein an End User Device can be disconnected to from the Enterprise Network and immediately reconnect when able without the need for undergoing any subscription process that was already done prior if the device still has an active subscription according to the Access Controller data (paragraph [0044] describes a mobile device has its credentials stored in a memory when the mobile device registers with a provider, and the connection component facilitates auto-connection with the Internet via the provider using user credentials stored on the memory).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Canpolat for facilitating auto-connection for a mobile device. The teachings of Canpolat, when implemented in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to connect to a network . One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Canpolat in the Dos Remedios and Kotecha system in order to reduce excessive time and complications for a user to find and connect to a network.
Conclusions
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Williams et al. (US 9,800,483) teach method for dynamic bandwidth allocation for optimizing network utilization
Cheriton et al. (US 7,782,774) teach TCP optimization single rate policer
Dos Remedios et al. (US 2008/0037552) teach method for providing quality of service in packet-based core transport networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to L. T N. whose telephone number is (571)272-1013. The examiner can normally be reached M & Th 5:30 am - 2:30 pm EST.
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, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached on 571-272-4170. 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.
/L. T. N/
Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/TONIA L DOLLINGER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights