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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/26/2026 has been entered.
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 20-22, 24-26 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.
Claim 20 states a base station ID designates a portion of the first data packets as being sourced from the wireless access node. It is unclear if there are multiple devices (i.e. a base station and a separate wireless access node) here, or if the base station ID is actually the ID of the wireless access node. If the ID is that of the wireless access node then the claims should state the wireless access node ID, or positively define the wireless access node to be a base station.
Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claim(s) 20-22, 42, 43, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatzkamer et al. “Shatzkamer” US 2013/0163524 in view of Hazlewood et al. “Hazlewood” US 2018/0252793.
Regarding claims 20, Shatzkamer teaches a Computerized modem apparatus for use in a data network, comprising: a radio frequency (RF) interface; at least one packet data interface; processor apparatus in data communication with the at least one packet data interface and the RF interface; and storage apparatus in data communication with the processor apparatus, the storage apparatus comprising at least one computer program configured to, when executed by the processor apparatus, cause the computerized modem apparatus to:
receive first data packets via the at least one packet data interface (CM 115 receives data from the femtocell 100 which may be integrated with or coupled to the CM (Paragraph 17, See Figure 1. The femtocell provides at least one stream of data to the cable modem; Paragraphs 48 and 50);
determine that at least a portion of the first data packets are sourced from a wireless access node (in response to the CM sourcing the data packets from femtocell (i.e. wireless access node) the cable modem sends the information to CMTS; Paragraphs 48 and 50, see also Figure 6); and
based at least on the determination, forward the at least portion of the first data packets that are sourced from the wireless access node to a packet receiver apparatus in data communication with the computerized modem apparatus via at least the RF interface (in response to the CM sourcing the data packets from femtocell (i.e. wireless access node) the cable modem sends the information to CMTS (i.e. packet receiver); Paragraphs 48 and 50, see also Figure 6).
Shatzkamer does not expressly disclose inspecting header fields to read a BS ID having one or more bits in a reserved or unused portion of an IP header, the base station ID designating a portion of first packets as sourced from the wireless access node. Hazlewood teaches a cellular base station (i.e. wireless access node) tags a message with an identifier of the base station by extending the internet protocol header. This message is then sent to the computer system; Paragraphs 114-116, see also paragraphs 30-31. This base station ID would be put in unused portions of the IP header. Thus one can see the base station ID (which identifies the base station) would indicate the information is from the wireless access node.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Shatzkamer to include a base station ID in a header to identify the packets from the wireless access node as taught by Hazlewood.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can increase efficiency as taught by Hazlewood; Paragraph 31.
Regarding claim 21, Shatzkamer teaches establishing one or more prioritized service flows between the modem apparatus and packet receiver responsive to the forwarding of at least a portion of the first data packet sourced from wireless access node (in response to the CM sourcing the data packets from femtocell (i.e. wireless access node) the cable modem sends the information to CMTS. The information is sent with respect to particular service classes (priority); Paragraphs 48 and 50, see also Figure 6).
Regarding claim 22, Shatzkamer teaches the receiver is a DOCSIS CMTS and the modem apparatus is a DOCSIS CM (Paragraphs 48 and 50).
Regarding claims 42, Shatzkamer teaches a non-transitory medium (Paragraph 40), comprising at least one computer program configured to, when executed by the processor apparatus, cause the computerized modem apparatus to:
receive first data packets (CM 115 receives data from the femtocell 100 which may be integrated with or coupled to the CM (Paragraph 17, See Figure 1. The femtocell provides at least one stream of data to the cable modem; Paragraphs 48 and 50);
determine that at least a portion of the first data packets are sourced from a wireless access node, (in response to the CM sourcing the data packets from femtocell (i.e. wireless access node) the cable modem sends the information to CMTS; Paragraphs 48 and 50, see also Figure 6); and
based at least on the determination, forward the at least portion of the first data packets that are sourced from the wireless access node to a packet receiver apparatus in data communication with the computerized modem apparatus via at least the RF interface (in response to the CM sourcing the data packets from femtocell (i.e. wireless access node) the cable modem sends the information to CMTS (i.e. packet receiver); Paragraphs 48 and 50, see also Figure 6).
While Shatzkamer teaches prioritization of a portion of data (in response to the CM sourcing the data packets from femtocell (i.e. wireless access node) the cable modem sends the information to CMTS. The information is sent with respect to particular service classes (priority); Paragraphs 48 and 50, see also Figure 6), Shatzkamer does not expressly disclose the determining that the at least portion of the first data packets are sourced from the wireless access node is based on a designation applied by the wireless access node to one or more IP packet header fields of the at least portion of the first data packets to enable prioritization of the at least portion of the first data packets for upstream transmission. Hazlewood teaches a cellular base station (i.e. wireless access node) tags a message with an identifier of the base station by extending the internet protocol header. This message is then sent to the computer system; Paragraphs 114-116, see also paragraphs 30-31. This base station ID (i.e. designation) would be put in unused portions of the IP header. Thus one can see the base station ID (which identifies the base station) would indicate the information is from the wireless access node. The enabling of the prioritization is merely intended use of a designation being applied. Since Hazlewood has a designation applied by the base station, it is viewed as enabling prioritization (which Shatzkamer teaches).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Shatzkamer to include a designation in a header to identify the packets from the wireless access node as taught by Hazlewood.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can increase efficiency as taught by Hazlewood; Paragraph 31.
Regarding claim 43, Shatzkamer teaches establishing one or more prioritized service flows between the modem apparatus and packet receiver responsive to the forwarding of at least a portion of the first data packet sourced from wireless access node (in response to the CM sourcing the data packets from femtocell (i.e. wireless access node) the cable modem sends the information to CMTS. The information is sent with respect to particular service classes (priority); Paragraphs 48 and 50, see also Figure 6).
Regarding claim 45, Shatzkamer teaches the establishment is for service flow dedicated to wireless device attachment and user plane data (Paragraphs 25-26 disclose user plane information and wireless attachment/communications; Paragraphs 48 and 50.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatzkamer in view Hazlewood in view of Zaks et al. “Zaks” US 2019/0045534.
Regarding claim 24, Shatzkamer teaches does not expressly disclose queuing packets associated with the service flow created to route the packets to the receiver apparatus; however, Zaks teaches forwarding data along wherein the data is associated with a particular service class/flow; Paragraphs 48 and 50. Shatzkamer does not expressly disclose queuing packets before sending; however, Zaks teaches packets are queued at the cable modem before being sent to the CMTS; Paragraphs 111 (queueing) and 138.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the teachings of Shatzkamer to include queuing packets before sending them as taught by Zaks.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the CM knows where to forward to packets based on their traffic IDs as taught by Zaks; Paragraph 138.
Claim(s) 25, 26, 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatzkamer in view Hazlewood in view of of Zaks and further in view of Balachandran et al. “Balacahndran” US 2002/0036992.
Regarding claim 25, while the prior art teaches queuing data before transmitting it from a CM to a CMTS, the prior art does not disclose monitoring a buffer and changing a transmission parameter based on the monitoring. Balachandran teaches monitoring the buffer and then based on the monitoring, change the MCS level (i.e. transmission parameter) to a MCS level of a more robust one; Paragraph 17.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include monitoring the buffer and changing the MCS to a more robust one as taught by Balachandran.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can utilize a more robust MCS as taught by Balachandran; Paragraph 17.
Regarding claim 26, while the prior art teaches queuing data before transmitting it from a CM to a CMTS, the prior art does not disclose a buffer depth or fill rate, or the causation being changing the MCS to a higher in order one that used previously. Balachandran teaches monitoring the buffers draining (i.e. fill rate) and then based on the monitoring, change the MCS level (i.e. transmission parameter) to a MCS level of a more robust one (i.e. higher order); Paragraph 17.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include monitoring the buffer and changing the MCS to a more robust one as taught by Balachandran.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can utilize a more robust MCS as taught by Balachandran; Paragraph 17.
Regarding claim 46, Shatzkamer teaches does not expressly disclose queuing packets associated with the service flow created to route the packets to the receiver apparatus; however, Zaks teaches forwarding data along wherein the data is associated with a particular service class/flow; Paragraphs 48 and 50. Shatzkamer does not expressly disclose queuing packets before sending; however, Zaks teaches packets are queued at the cable modem before being sent to the CMTS; Paragraphs 111 (queueing) and 138.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the teachings of Shatzkamer to include queuing packets before sending them as taught by Zaks.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the CM knows where to forward to packets based on their traffic IDs as taught by Zaks; Paragraph 138.
while the prior art teaches queuing data before transmitting it from a CM to a CMTS, the prior art does not disclose a buffer depth or fill rate, or the causation being changing the MCS to a higher in order one that used previously. Balachandran teaches monitoring the buffers draining (i.e. fill rate) and then based on the monitoring, change the MCS level (i.e. transmission parameter) to a MCS level of a more robust one (i.e. higher order); Paragraph 17.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include monitoring the buffer and changing the MCS to a more robust one as taught by Balachandran.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can utilize a more robust MCS as taught by Balachandran; Paragraph 17.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatzkamer in view of Hazlewood in view of Lin De Medeiros et al. “Lin” US 2022/0078123.
Regarding claim 44, Shatzkamer does not disclose the prioritized flows enable the reduction in latency and packet loss; however, Lin teaches priority-based flows wherein a low-latency low loss system can be utilized (i.e. enable reduction in latency/loss); Paragraphs 4 and 72. The Examiner also notes the enabling is merely an intended use of the prioritization and does not necessarily carry any patentable weight.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include prioritized service flows to enable the reduction in loss/latency as taught by Lin.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can utilize a scheme that uses low-latency and a low-loss transmission as taught by Lin; Paragraphs 4 and 72.
Claim(s) 47, 50, 51, 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatzkamer in view of Srinivasan et al. “Srinivasan” US 2019/0379610.
Regarding claims 47, Shatzkamer teaches a computerized method for operating a network, the computerized method comprising:
receiving first data packets (CM 115 receives data from the femtocell 100 which may be integrated with or coupled to the CM (Paragraph 17, See Figure 1. The femtocell provides at least one stream of data to the cable modem; Paragraphs 48 and 50);
determining that at least a portion of the first data packets are sourced from a base station apparatus in data communication with a modem apparatus which is in communication with a computerized network apparatus, (in response to the CM sourcing the data packets from femtocell (i.e. wireless access node) the cable modem sends the information to CMTS; Paragraphs 48 and 50, see also Figure 6); and
based at least on the determining, transmitting the at least portion of the first data packets that are sourced from the base station to the computerized network apparatus (in response to the CM sourcing the data packets from femtocell (i.e. base station) the cable modem sends the information to CMTS (i.e. computerized network apparatus); Paragraphs 48 and 50, see also Figure 6).
While Shatzkamer teaches prioritization of a portion of data (in response to the CM sourcing the data packets from femtocell (i.e. wireless access node) the cable modem sends the information to CMTS. The information is sent with respect to particular service classes (priority); Paragraphs 48 and 50, see also Figure 6), Shatzkamer does not expressly disclose queueing a portion of the first data packet in a low latency/prioritized queue which bypasses an AQM or packet drop algorithm and transmitted the queued portion of the data. Srinivasan teaches applying a policy such that low latency data is queued to avoid packet drops until congestion is relieved; Paragraph 32. Once the congestion is relived the flow would continue being transmit, thus one can see low latency data is temporarily queued to avoid being dropped and later transmit as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Shatzkamer to include queueing low latency data to avoid being dropped as taught by Srinivasan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that packets can avoid being dropped when there is congest as taught by Srinivasan; Paragraph 32.
Regarding claim 50, Shatzkamer teaches establishing one or more prioritized service flows between the modem apparatus and packet receiver responsive to the forwarding of at least a portion of the first data packet sourced from wireless access node (in response to the CM sourcing the data packets from femtocell (i.e. wireless access node) the cable modem sends the information to CMTS. The information is sent with respect to particular service classes (priority); Paragraphs 48 and 50, see also Figure 6).
Regarding claim 51, Shatzkamer teaches the network includes hybrid coax DOCSIS (paragraphs 20, 22 and 30); wherein
The establishment of the one or more prioritized service flows between the modem apparatus and network apparatus comprises prioritizing packets in the COAX fiber network to increase first try connections to a core HFC (the cable modem sends the information to CMTS. The information is sent with respect to particular service classes (priority); Paragraphs 48 and 50, see also Figure 6. The increasing first try connection and attachments is merely a result of the prioritization. Further, there is only one flow for prioritization thus the term “prioritization” carries no meaning since there is nothing to compare the priority with or how the priority impacts “first try” connections).
Regarding claim 56, Shatzkamer teaches using the flows to route time-sensitive data between the base station and computerized network apparatus (the DOCSIS provides the service classes and transmits real-time polling information; Paragraph 21).
Claim(s) 48, 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatzkamer in view of Srinivasan further in view of Zaks.
Regarding claim 48, Shatzkamer teaches packets being marked with a designation by the base station (Paragraph 34 teaches packets in the stream have specific markers in them). Shatzkamer does disclose looking at the header or based on the port determines the packets are received from a wireless access point; however, Zaks teaches a WiFi access point classifies traffic using traffic IDs and forwards this to the CM. Based on the received information and traffic ID (general information can be found in a header), the CM forwards this to the CMTS; Paragraph 138, see also Figures 8 and 9.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the teachings of Shatzkamer to include looking at the header and/or port received to determine packets came from Wi-Fi access point as taught by Zaks.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the CM knows where to forward to packets based on their traffic IDs as taught by Zaks; Paragraph 138.
Regarding claim 49, Shatzkamer teaches packets being marked with a designation by the base station indicating data originated from base station generically (Paragraph 34 teaches packets in the stream have specific markers in them, thus constituting the indication the base station sent (originated) the data. The claim does not define what the “indication” is and thus anything can be viewed as “generically” indicating as claimed).
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatzkamer in view of Srinivasan in view of Grayson et al. “Grayson” US 2014/0056130.
Regarding claim 52, Shatzkamer teaches QoS with respect to flows in DOCSIS; paragraphs 14 and 21. Shatzkamer does not disclose DOCSIS for IP sessions; however, Grayson teaches establishing QoS for a DOCSIS IP transport network; Paragraph 41.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include DOCSIS and QoS with respect to IP data sessions as taught by Grayson.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can ensure QoS resources are properly established as taught by Grayson; Paragraph 41.
Claim(s) 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatzkamer in view of Srinivasan in view of Monajemi et al. “Monajemi” US 2021/0235310.
Regarding claim 53, Shatzkamer does not disclose prioritizing IoT devices for battery savings; however, Monajemi teaches battery-operated devices, like IoT, are prioritized when deployed for access to sleep mode over other devices; Paragraph 36. The prioritization for sleep mode conserve battery power.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include prioritizing one or more IoT device attachments to conserve battery power as taught by Monajemi.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can prioritize the sleep mode (i.e. battery savings) over other devices as taught by Monajemi; paragraph 36.
Claim(s) 54, 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatzkamer in view of Srinivasan in view of Zaks and further in view of Balacahndran.
Regarding claims 54-55, Shatzkamer teaches does not expressly disclose queuing packets associated with the service flow created to route the packets to the receiver apparatus; however, Zaks teaches forwarding data along wherein the data is associated with a particular service class/flow; Paragraphs 48 and 50. Shatzkamer does not expressly disclose queuing packets before sending; however, Zaks teaches packets are queued at the cable modem before being sent to the CMTS; Paragraphs 111 (queueing) and 138.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the teachings of Shatzkamer to include queuing packets before sending them as taught by Zaks.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the CM knows where to forward to packets based on their traffic IDs as taught by Zaks; Paragraph 138.
while the prior art teaches queuing data before transmitting it from a CM to a CMTS, the prior art does not disclose a buffer depth or fill rate, or the causation being changing the MCS to a higher in order one that used previously. Balachandran teaches monitoring the buffers draining (i.e. fill rate) and then based on the monitoring, change the MCS level (i.e. transmission parameter) to a MCS level of a more robust one (i.e. higher order); Paragraph 17.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include monitoring the buffer and changing the MCS to a more robust one as taught by Balachandran.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can utilize a more robust MCS as taught by Balachandran; Paragraph 17.
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatzkamer in view of Hazlewood and further in view of Srinivasan.
Regarding claim 57, Shatzkamer does not expressly disclose the designation indicates at least a portion of the first data packets are associated with a wireless device attach procedure. Hazlewood teaches a cellular base station (i.e. wireless access node) tags a message with an identifier of the base station by extending the internet protocol header. This message is then sent to the computer system; Paragraphs 114-116, see also paragraphs 30-31. This base station ID (i.e. designation) would be put in unused portions of the IP header. Further, these messages are in response to handshakes, registration, etc… (i.e. attach procedures); Paragraph 29).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Shatzkamer to include a designation associated with an attach procedure as taught by Hazlewood.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can increase efficiency as taught by Hazlewood; Paragraph 31.
While Shatzkamer teaches prioritization of a portion of data (in response to the CM sourcing the data packets from femtocell (i.e. wireless access node) the cable modem sends the information to CMTS. The information is sent with respect to particular service classes (priority); Paragraphs 48 and 50, see also Figure 6), Shatzkamer does not expressly disclose queueing a portion of the first data packet in a low latency/prioritized queue which bypasses an AQM or packet drop algorithm and transmitted the queued portion of the data. Srinivasan teaches applying a policy such that low latency data is queued to avoid packet drops until congestion is relieved; Paragraph 32. Once the congestion is relived the flow would continue being transmit, thus one can see low latency data is temporarily queued to avoid being dropped and later transmit as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Shatzkamer to include queueing low latency data to avoid being dropped as taught by Srinivasan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that packets can avoid being dropped when there is congest as taught by Srinivasan; Paragraph 32
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 20-22, 24-46, 42-57 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights