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
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 8/6/2026. The amendment has been entered and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim requires 3 services flows (supported by applicant’s specification as SYN, ATTACH, DATA); however, the specification does not appear to support the second flow being enabled based on receipt, via the first flow, of data sourced from the base station and the third flow enabled based on receipt, via the second service flow of data sourced from the base station. The specification does not appear to discuss what information is within the service flows and further, the data sourced from the base station would be received via the first service flow, and not the second service flow. Page 34 line 4-7 makes clear that after receiving ATTACH (i.e. second flow), the DATA (i.e. third service flow) is enabled. Thus, there doesn’t appear to be support for the enabling the third flow based on receipt of data sourced from the base station in the second service flow because the second service flow is not sourcing the base station it is providing “attach” queued traffic.
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 wireless access node ID having one or more bits in a reserved or unused portion of an IP header, the wireless access node 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 claim 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) and the use of DOCSIS (thus using “best-effort”), 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 the designation causing the at least portion of the first data packets to be queued for upstream transmission in a prioritized upstream service flow that is distinct from another service flow. 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 designation causing 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 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.
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 not 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 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.
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatzkamer in view of Hazlewood and further in view of Yuan et al. “Yuan” US 2020/0099599.
Regarding claim 59, the prior art does not expressly disclose the header includes one or two bits; however, Yuan teaches that one or more reserved bits in the IP header can be used for tagging packets; Paragraph 43. The communications can be with respect to cable modems; Paragraph 35.
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 expressly recite the header has one or two bits as taught by Yuan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that header has dedicated bits to be used for tagging packets as taught by Yuan; Paragraph 43.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 46 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 20, applicant argues Shatzkamer performs no determination of the source of data being received since the source is fixed by architecture rather than determined by inspection.
The Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments; however, disagrees the cited art does not teach the limitation. The rejection makes clear Shatzkamer was not relied upon to disclose the inspection of the header/packets, thus the arguments are moot.
Regarding Hazlewood, Applicant argues the words “reserved, unused, and spare” do not appear anywhere in the reference. Encapsulation and the claimed used of a reserved or other unused portion of an existing header are structurally distinct techniques. Applicant argues placing bits in a reserved/unused portion of an IP header uses capacity that the header already has, and encapsulation, by contrast, prepends a further header which enlarges the message.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, there is nothing in the claim language precluding any extension of a header. The claim merely states that header has a field with one or more bits that are in an unused or reserved portion of an IP packet header. The header with the extension is viewed as the claimed IP packet header structure. Hazlewood teaches in the extended portion of the header (i.e. unused portion), the base station identifier is found. Thus when that packet is received (i.e. the IP header packet) would be inspected and the identification information found in the unused portion (Paragraphs 114-116. The term “unused” has no meaning. This would be any portion of the packet that doesn’t have other information in it or is not currently being used for something else. The Examiner suggests removing the term “unused” such that only a reserved field is used. Further definition to prevent any header extensions from being added would also help overcome the cited art of record.
Regarding the argument about the motivation to combine, efficiency, in terms of limiting communications, is increased. Thus applicant’s arguments that the efficiency effectively decreases since packet size is increased is irrelevant. The tagging of the message does in fact help efficiency from the standpoint of less communications as discussed by Hazlewood; Paragraph 31.
Regarding claim 42, Applicant argues the prior art teaches away from the amended limitations. Rather than segregating traffic into its own service flow, Applicant argues Shatzkamer consolidates the traffic into a single, shared flow and thus nothing teaches distinguishing a prioritized upstream service flow from best-effort service flows.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the amended limitation is merely intended use. There is no positive transmission/reception occurring of a prioritized upstream flow and a distinct best effort flow. The way the claim is written, the limitation carries no patentable weight. Second, paragraph 34, as noted by the applicant, states that the sub-channels can share the same service flow. This just means this is one option. Reading this paragraph, one would conclude there could also be multiple flows that are not shared. Shatzkamer further teaches the use of DOCSIS (Paragraph 50) which included best-effort flows. Therefore, the amended limitation stands properly rejected.
Regarding claim 24, Applicant argues Zaks does not teach queuing at a cable modem so much as its avoidance because Zaks teaches “immediately” sending information with minimum DOCSIS buffering time.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zaks teaches packets are queued at the cable modem before being sent to the CMTS; Paragraphs 111 (queueing) and 138. While the time the packets spends in the queue is minimized. Regardless of how long a packet stays buffered, all that is needed to properly rejected the claimed limitation is that packets are queued. As shown, Zaks teaches packets are queued prior to transmission, thus the claim stands properly rejected.
Regarding claims 26 and 46, the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection for these claims. Thus the arguments are moot.
Regarding claim 44, Applicant argues Lin De Medeiros does not have the terms cable modem, CMTS DOCSIS and service flow in the reference. Applicant further argues the enabling is not an intended use and thus has patentable weight.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “to enable…” is merely intended use/ a result of the configuring. The claim lacks details of what is happening with the configuring and how that would impact anything to do with reducing latency and loss.
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. Therefore, the claim stands properly rejected. The Examiner suggests defining how the flow is configured (i.e. what exactly causes the reduction in latency and packet loss).
Regarding claim 47, Applicant argues Srinivasan does not teach an active queue management algorithm at all. AQM, Active queue management, random early detection, RED PIE CoDel do not appear in the reference. Applicant argues Srinivasan is directed to allocation of intermediate queues within a data center device and there is no description of an active queue management system or a queue that bypasses one. Applicant further argues the queue in Srinivasan carrying latency guarantee is the queue from which the packets are dropped and that it teaches avoiding packet drops during congestion which relinquishes the latency guarantee.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claim does not require an AQM. The claim requires bypassing the AQM or a packet drop algorithm. Thus the arguments towards the AQM are moot. The claim as written merely requires queueing packets in a low latency/prioritized queue and this queue bypasses a packet drop algorithm.
Srinivasan teaches applying a policy such that low latency data is queued. The queues data avoids packet drops until the congestion is relieved. The avoiding packet drops is equivalent to the claimed “bypass… a packet drop algorithm”; Paragraph 32. Therefore, the claim stands properly rejected.
Regarding claim 51, the prioritization is not given patentable weight because there is nothing to compare it to, thus the prioritized flow that is used in the art is viewed as prioritizing UE core attachment procedures etc.. Unless there are multiple things doing the network attachment procedures etc, the prioritization doesn’t have any real meaning as the only flow/service would be “prioritized”.
Regarding claim 48, Applicant argues the identifier in Zaks is a data link layer traffic ID rather than a field of an IP packet header and that the classification is done at the access point not the modem. Thus Zaks is silent to a base station ID or designation indicating packets originate from a base station.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claim language does not require an IP header, it only requires any data packet. 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, one can see Zaks teaches a designation within a packet.
Regarding claim 53, Applicant argues Monajemi teaches IoT may be prioritized for acces to sleep mode over cellphones. Prioritizing a device for access to power savings is not prioritizing a device’s attachment.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim states prioritizing IoT device attachments to at least conserve battery resources of the IoT devices. The prioritization is with respect to IoT devices conserving resources. 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. Thu sone can see the IoT devices are prioritized for purposes of conserving battery resources.
Regarding claim 54, Applicant argues, the change to a more robust MCS in Balachandran would be a decrease rather than an increase in modulation order and thus the art fails to teach increasing a modulation order to reduce latency.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 54 is different than claims 26 and 46. Claim 54 does not require an actual change in the modulation order to occur. Claim 54 merely teaches the idea of negotiating with the computerized network apparatus to increase a modulation order to reduce latency; however, this change never actually occurs. Thus the argument is moot.
Regarding claim 55, Applicant argues the monitoring is not taught because queue depth nor fill rate are round within Balachandran. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Verbatim claim language is not required in the references to properly formulate a rejection. Balachandran teaches the draining of queues (Paragraph 17). This is viewed as a queue depth.
Regarding claim 57, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach a wireless device attach procedure because Hazlewood teaches mobile devices that have previously connected/performed registration process with the base station and thus does not teach a designation identifying packets pertaining to an attach procedure as distinguished from other traffic. The term “attach procedure” appears nowhere in Hazlewood and Hazlewood provides no mechanism for distinguishing attachment signaling from other traffic based on header designation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language merely requires the designation to be associated with an attach procedure. There is nothing in the claims that states when this attach procedure occurs. As noted in the office action and reiterated here below, 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 one can see the designation is associated with a wireless device attach procedure (regardless of whether the procedure already occurred or not). Thus the claim stands properly rejected.
Conclusion
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 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